^LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.^ 



Me// 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. % 



r- — ^ ^""-v* ^ir^ ^ — s», — sr ~ ^-113 
















My, 













1 >2^sKfcDc2> 




AIVS DESTINY. 

IMMORTALITY: 

THE ARGUMENTS 



1 NATURE AND SCRIPTURE. 1 



BY REV. T. M. POST. D.D., 



S3 



OF ST. LOUTS MO. 



REVIEWED 

BY GEORGE STORKS, 

liDITOK OF BIBLE EXAMINER, NEW YORK. 



NEW -YORK: 

PUBLISHED AT 109 NASSAU STREET. 
1856. 



MAN'S DESTINY. 

IMMORTALITY: 

THE ARGUMENTS 

FROM 

NATURE AND SCRIPTURE, 

BY REV. T. M. POST, D.D., 

OF ST. LOUIS, MO., 




REVIEWED 



BY GEORGE STORES, 

EDITOE OF BIBLE EXAMINER, NEW YORK. 



NEW-YOEK: 

PUBLISHED AT 109 NASSAU STREET. 
1856. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 
GEORGE STORES, 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
Southern District of Kew York. 



J. J. REED, 

PRINTER AND STEREOTYPER, 

16 Spruce-St.,K T. 



CONTENTS. 

page 

Review of the Argument from Nature for Universal 

Immortality, - 5-56 

Review of the Argument from Scripture for Univer- 
sal Immortality, - - - - - 57-149 

APPENDIX. 

Difficulties Stated by Dr. Post to be Encountered 
in Establishing the Idea of the Immortality of 
the Wicked, - 150-152 

General Index to Topics, - 154, 155 



PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 



Eev. T. M. Post, D.D., of St. Louis, 31o., a well 
known and talented clergyman, was selected by cer- 
tain ministers and others, in New England, to write 
a Prize Essay on Immortality, for which a gentle- 
man in New York paid 8150. It was intended to 
have it the best that could be said or written in favor 
of the immortality of all men. without regard to their 
moral character ; that is, of their inherent immor- 
tality. 

Dr. Post took up the subject under two heads of 
argument. First, " The Argument from Nature 
and second — " The Argument from Scripture." The 
first of these appeared in The'New Englander of Feb- 
ruary, and the other in May. 

The Ebvieweb has followed these Arguments in 
their order. The Review of the Argument from Na- 
ture was written before that from Scripture appeared. 

The Author of the Review wrote it by request, and 
with the expectation that it would be published with 
a reprint of the Essay in one volume ; but before 
completing it, circumstances occurred which led the 
Reviewer to decline furnishing it for that purpose, 
and he concluded to let it be issued in its present 
form. This statement was deemed necessary to ex- 
plain its appearance at all, and to account for some 
expressions to be found in it, as also for not referring 
to the pages in the Essay from which the extracts 
are taken. Publisher, 

New York, July, 1856. 



IMMORTALITY; 

REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



BY GEO. STORRS, EDITOR BIBLE EXAMINER, NEW YORK. 



TTe would hare been glad if our author had, at the outset, 
given us the argument from nature that man is a double en- 
tity, or a dualbeing. He speaks of" the soul" and its " mate- 
rial companion /" thus giving us to understand that man is 
not one — or a unit — but dual. If nature teaches this, where 
is its utterance ? Instead of any attempt to show from na- 
ture that man is dual he assumes it ; and upon that assump- 
tion he builds an argument for " the immortality of the 
soul." Having begun with assumption we can look for 
nothing but endless " conjectures" as he proceeds. 

"We are glad to find him frankly dismissing " all argu- 
ments from the essence of the soul as impracticable and irrele- 
vant." He says — u Assuming that it is of an essence not to 
be affected by forces and agents which slay the body," &c. 

This is an assumption unsustained by any revelation of 
nature. Nature proclaims when the body is slain the man 
is dead, and gives us no hint that there is any conscious sur- 
vivance of him. He admits that even supposing the soul to 
survive the body, " agencies may await it, somewhere in the 
endless future, before which it may at last fail." Hence he 
dismisses " also all arguments from the phenomena of the 
soul" [why not say the mind ?] " at or near the death of the 
body." That is — At the death of the man : for nature uses 
no such language as our author employs ; and we protest it is 
irr eleven t till he shall show that nature reveals man as a 



6 



IMMORTALITY. 



dual being. He admits that " mortal vision cannot follow" 
the soul when death " has conquered its material companion ;'" 
and hence. " our argument to God, as alone possessing the 
key to the mighty secret." This is, in fact, an admission 
that nature can give no knowledge about immortality for 
man, or " the soul." Why then shall we spend time in specu- 
lating from nature which can give no more help in favor of 
immortality than Baal himself? But he proceeds thus : — 

" Our present argument supposes us to be standing alone with na- 
ture, and in her revelations of God we have to read our answers." 
He adds, " That answer she gives us in her discourse of a God of 
Reason, Justice and Love." 

Taking this position, we are compelled to put aside the 
Scriptures and walk by the light of nature alone, in the argu- 
ment from nature : we must consider ourselves without any 
positive knowledge that the moral or physical world ever 
were any better than now, or that they ever will be ; or that 
any other world exists where men will be compensated for 
the evil and sufferings of this. We are not to allow a ray of 
light to shine on our path from revelation proper ; other- 
wise we are not " standing alone with nature and her revela- 
tions of God." 

Our author says, nature " discourses of a God of Reason, Justice 
and Love ;" and adds, u a God is revealed to the soul in its own be- 
ing and constitution." He then says — " The power that is to deter- 
mine the question of the soul's continuance, is reasonable, just and 
benevolent. How will these attributes require him to determine it 1 
In answering this question he says : — " First, the aptitude and capa- 
cities of the soul, and its culture and discipline to ends not attained 
in this life, foretoken, under the rule of a God of reason, a future in 
which these aptitudes and capacities shall find their object, and . 
those ends shall be fully accomplished." 

In reply, we ask, if nature in her reasoning, or actings, 
sustains such an idea ? Does nature now testify that life 
must be continued till the greatest possible perfection is at- 
tained ? Do not multitudes die before attaining even a toler- 
able maturity ? yea, many before they have discovered at all, 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



7 



their aptitudes and capacities, and without any culture or 
discipline ? If nature thus deals with men now, what ground 
is there for reasoning that they might not be dealt with in 
the same manner in a future life ? Indeed, what ground for 
an assumption, judging from nature alone, that there is or 
can be any future life at all ? Look at nature in the man 
who is in a course of cultivation, and has arrived at that 
maturity which fits him for years of usefulness. He is 
cut down in the midst of usefulness and passes away into the 
silence of death. Reason is utterly bewildered by such an 
event for all that nature can help her. What right, what 
ground, has reason to conclude that if nature thus acts now 
she will ever alter her course in another life, or that another 
life could be expected when nature deprives the man of this 
at a period best suited for his usefulness ? And how does 
reason know, from nature, but that the soul did attain all the 
ends designed for it, before death ? 

But. saith our author — i: The moral inequalities of the present 
world are assurances, under the rule of justice, of a world where 
these shall be rectified, and where guilt escaping punishment here, 
shall find retribution.'' 

In reply, we say, the God of this world does now suffer 
these inequalities and does not rectify them : and the present 
prevalence of triumphant injustice does not in itself bear 
witness to the justice of God or give ground to expect that 
a future administration will be introduced when the principles 
of government are to be directly the opposite to those now 
acted upon. If the justice of God allows men to go unpun- 
ished into another life, that same justice may allow them to 
go unpunished forever, for ail nature can inform us to the 
contrary. Justice is justice in one life as well as in another ; 
and if there are reasons in the divine mind — and how can 
our author tell but there may be — that, under the present 
administration, lets guilt escape punishment, how does nature 
reveal that it may not be so, if the sinner enters on another 
life ? IS justice is not impeached by letting it escape in this 



8 



IMMORTALITY : 



world, what reason is there in nature to assure us it may not 
let it escape in another ? 

Besides, if " the soul in its own being and moral constitu- 
tion reveals that of its Author" — and if "it feels the Father 
of its reason and conscience must be reasonable and just," 
then the conclusion is inevitable, from nature, that when a 
wicked and guilty man is dead — ceases from life — he shall 
remain dead, and not be revived into life. Natural reason 
and conscience agree that justice can ask no more than that 
the guilty shall by some means be placed where they shall 
no longer injure others ; or, at the most, be incapacitated — 
as they would be when dead — from repeating their crimes. 
Such is the voice of reason and conscience, and both revolt 
at the idea of the infliction of protracted pain, in punish- 
ment, unless designed as corrective. Hence the argument 
for a future life, for the wicked and incorrigible, is adverse 
to such a life, if drawn from reason and justice , which al- 
ways condemn following a man, however wicked, to any worse 
infliction than death. 

" In like manner," if " a capacity and faculty for virtue 
and happiness, cultivated and disciplined to the very close of 
life," are not fully rewarded in the happiness of well doing 
in this life, how are they cc prophetic" that " a God delight- 
ing in happiness and virtue" will give " another life" for such 
end, or any other ends ? Does nature teach God will be 
more favorably disposed to the happiness of the virtuous in 
another life than in this ? And if His justice can let them 
suffer now, and fail of attaining their full desires, how can 
nature show it may not always be so, supposing another life 
given ? 

Says our author, "A benevolent God would not quench a being at 
a time when beyond any former period it was fitted to attain higher 
moral excellence and bliss." 

But, nature declares that its God does often thus 
<; quench a being" by death, and cut him off from life " at a 
time when beyond any former period," he " was fitted" not 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FRQ3I NATURE. 



g 



only " to attain higher moral excellence and bliss,'' but to be 
useful to an extent, among men, that he never was before. 
How then is nature to decide that that cutting off is not 
final and eternal ? or, if it decides for another life, what 
ground has it to affirm that life immortal, more than this ? 

" We think the argument from nature,'' presented by our 
author for " the immortality of the good," is far from being 
u conclusive ;" by no means, not ^'perfectly"' so. And when 
he adds, " If there be a good, wise, just and true God on the 
throne of being, such souls shall never die," we think he has 
made a fearful hazard to stake such perfections on nature's 
revelations ; for k ' ; the good'' do die, nature affirms ; and it 
gives us no evidence that they shall ever rise from the dead. 

Our author next proceeds to the argument from nature for 
the immortality of the wicked; and here, at the outset, he 
states the " difficulties that start on nature at the question 
of Immortality, in view of that monstrous and dreadful 
anomaly, a spiritual intelligence implacably and irrevocably 
at war with God and virtue." We shall spend no time in 
remarks on that statement at present, but hope the reader 
will carefully examine those difficulties, and, bear them in 
mind as we proceed.* He admits that " Nature shudders at" 
the idea of the immortality of the wicked, and yet says, ;> the 
analogies of nature will not permit us to reject the doctrine 
of the reality" of " a lost soul under the reign of a God of 
love, because of its painfulness and terror :" he adds — li The 
mystery of evil which we know to be here, equally oppresses 
and overwhelms us." 

Here we think our author is entirely mistaken. This life 
is a mixture — to every individual — of good and evil; and 
in no case without termination. If it terminates in no other 
way it does by death. Even while life is protracted, in a 
large portion of cases, the experience of each individual is, 
that the enjoyment of life overbalances by far its infelicities; 
so that with all the sufferings incident to this life men love 

* See Appendix, STo. 1 



10 



IMMORTALITY : 



it and cleave to it as long as possible. The idea of unmixed, 
unmitigated, and interminable evil, has no analogy in na- 
ture. Such an idea can find nothing in nature that can 
" equally oppress and overwhelm us." Nature though not 
always able to account for the evils of this life, looks upon 
them as having a certain termination, by being removed, or 
the subject of them resting in death. Immortality in sin 
and unmitigated misery, has no such alleviating circumstan- 
ces. " The mystery of" such u evil" has no analogy in na- 
ture; nor is it possible that any " mystery of evil which we 
know to be here," can " equally oppress and overwhelm us." 

Our author says, u It is the purpose of this article to 
show that while admitting these difficulties, we cannot, even 
in the light of nature, build on them a valid presumption or 
argument against the truth of the doctrine embarrassed by 
them that is, against the doctrine of the endless conscious 
existence of the wicked in a state of unmitigated torture, 
where no means are ever to be employed to reform them, 
and where no hope is held out for any alleviation to their 
woe, even if a desire should ever arise in their minds to re- 
form ! If " the soul" is " constituted so that its moral sense 
instinctively and irresistibly loves and approves benevolence 
and hates and condemns malignity" — as our author said at 
the commencement of his argument — then nature's God 
must abhor and " loathe Himself" or abhor and loathe the 
doctrine of the unmitigated and remediless torture of the 
work of His hands ; otherwise He is out of harmony with 
the moral sense He has created in man. 

But our author goes on to say, the difficulties which ap- 
pear against the doctrine of the endless being and sufferings 
of the wicked " do not entitle man to prejudge the question 
under discussion ;" and adds, " they leave it open and uncom- 
mitted for revelation, and leave us in interpreting revelation, 
to the natural and obvious import of language." This last 
sentiment we concur in ; but we do not concur in the idea 
that any revelation from the Author of our being can do vio- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



] 1 



lcncc to our " moral sense" with which He has endowed us. 
Any communication, professing to be a revelation from Him, 
doing this, cannot be received as truthful — it must be an im- 
position — and cannot but be rejected, or else it must admit 
that " the Father of its reason and .conscience" is neither 
" reasonable" nor " just." 

Our author says. " We do not attempt positively to refute these 
objections" [against the endless sufferings of the wicked] "by evi- 
dence from nature or to obviate them by the resolution of the diffi- 
culties presented, or to demonstrate the truth of the doctrine against 
"which they are leveled. 

It was well he made this announcement; otherwise some 
might have prejudged the case, and have supposed that he 
was about to give satisfaction, from nature, that all nature's 
horror at, and abhorrence of such unparalleled injustice, as 
the idea of eternal sufferings for the sins of this life, was 
only imaginary, and not real ; or, that by this horror nature 
contradicted the " moral sense" its Author had endowed it 
with. He adds — 

" We shall not contend that the argument from nature for the im- 
mortality of the wicked, is positive or demonstrative, or is of itself 
sufficient." 

"What then is to become of the millions that never had 
anything but nature to instruct them on this subject ? Are 
they to dwell in eternal fire, unmitigated pain, and sink in 
remediless woe, of which the Author of their being never 
gave " sufficient" evidence, or " positive demonstration?" — 
These questions are not to be put aside by the " endless" 
conjectures upon which our author now enters. - To pursue 
this subject then with imaginary " possibilities," or mere 
" hypothetical"* conjectures, and tell us that they are u not 
capable of disproof," is, to us, to " beat the air?' 1 He tells 
us — the K difficulties'' — he has to encounter in the establish- 
ing the idea of the perpetuation of sin and the eternal suffer- 
ings of che wicked, 

:: Most of them have their counterpart in the course of nature and 



12 



IMMORTALITY : 



the actual administration of God, under which we find ourselves : 
and as they actually do cohere with the Divine Government in one 
case, so we cannot be competent to affirm they may not cohere with 
it in the other." 

It is well our author put in the saving clause, " most of 
them." We claim the benefit of that clause, and affirm 
there is nothing in " nature and the actual administration of 
God, under which we find ourselves," that has any u coun- 
terpart" to the idea of unmitigated torture in a remediless 
state of sin and woe. This is the very point our author is 
bound to demonstrate, and which he must prove, or all his 
labor is lost ; nor can he hide the nakedness of the field of 
nature, he is exploring for help, by saying his " hypothesis" 
of " possibilities" are " not capable of disproof." A man 
might, it seems to us, as well tell us that Moloch is possibly 
the God of nature ; and conclude it is " not capable of dis- 
proof " because so many and so great sorrows and sufferings 
are manifest under the administration of the God of nature. 

Our author would forestall us in subverting his argument 
on possibilities, by asking us to 

" Let it be remembered that it is to be met, not by calling for pos- 
itive proof where none is attempted." 

Here then is a frank acknowledgment that he has no pos- 
itive proof from nature on which to sustain an argument for 
the " endless existence of the wicked," and their unending 
torment and woe. His object in his possible hypothesis is, 

" To clear the way for an unbiassed interpretation of the Scrip- 
ture, and to show that nature at least does not prejudge this question 
against revelation." 

If we understand this paragraph, it assumes that revela- 
tion does teach the endless being, or immortality and unmit- 
igated sufferings of the wicked : and hence our author's des- 
perate effort to harmonize the teaching of nature with what 
he regards as the teachings of revelation. In other words, 
it is a mighty effort, by possible " conjectures," to satisfy 
man's " moral sense" with the " interpretation of the Scrip- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



13 



ture" he designs to give in support of endless sin and suf- 
fering. It seems his own " moral sense" needs this kind of 
support to embolden him to construe the words of the Most 
High God — who has sworn by Himself that He has no pleas- 
ure in the death of the wicked — to mean that death does 
not truly mean death, but endless, irremediable sufferings 
and woe; or immortality in sin and misery. We cannot 
blame him for an attempt to cover himself by " conjectures" 
of possibilities, that shall seem to give some show of reason 
for his interpretation of Scripture. How else could he stand 
forth as the advocate of the doctrine he is to attempt to sus- 
tain from that volume which reveals life, future and eternal, 
as the gift of God ; and not as an infliction upon men ? — 
" The ivages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal 
life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Our author proceeds 
to say — 

11 Let us then approach this question in full view of the difficul- 
ties it presents, and see if in the light of Nature, they absolutely 
shut up the avenues of endless existence to the wicked ; and if those 
difficulties would not, in many cases, as much preclude them from 
the present as from a future being ; and as much from a life after 
death at all, as from one endlessly prolonged. 57 

If we confine our inquiry to nature alone, it reveals no 
" life after death at all." Nature reveals a present life, and 
reveals it as a mixture of good and evil to each individual ; 
not unmixed evil, in any case of mental development. It is 
not to be forgotten or overlooked that the future and endless 
life of the wicked, for which our author is endeavoring to put 
in a plea, is that of unmixed evil, suffering and woe ; into 
which no ray of hope is ever to enter and no intermission of 
their anguish can ever take place. For such a state there is 
no analogy in nature, nor will our author pretend he can find 
any. Hence his resort to conjectures of possible reasons, 
all of which are a violation of our " moral sense" of justice, 
and irreconcilable with any known administration of God. 
While our author proceeds on his course, he speaks of "this 



14 



IMMORTALITY : 



conscious being within us." Who is the " us f n Does the 
body constitute " us ?" If so, the supposed soul is no part 
of us, and must be something distinct from the personality 
called num. Certainly, this ideal soul is no part of "us;" 
and it yet remains to be shown that any such " being" ex- 
ists "within us." Nature gives no evidence of it; hence 
" possibly' our author is making " conjectures" about a 
nonentity; it is "not capable of disproof" that he is not 
doing so. Our author goes on : 

{; With terror and awe then, we approach the gulf of night that 
yawns for the evil on the limit of this earthly life ; and strain our 
gaze, far as we may, by nature's dim light, into its darkness ; in- 
quiring whether it may not be, that under the vestment of eternal 
night, there may beat the heart of eternal woe. We apply the ear 
to the infinite gloom to see whether we may not perchance catch, 
coming up through its mystery and silence, the accents of immortal 
sorrow." 

Nature's God must be a most unfeeling and unsympathe- 
tic being to leave the children of men to strain their eyes 
and ears so dreadfully in unavailing conjectures about the 
future, if such a future is in store for men as our author is 
striving to find. How easy to have made it known, if true ; 
and how would benevolence have prompted him to make it 
fully manifest so as to have made it highly probable, if not 
absolutely certain, unless He designed the eternal misery of 
a large portion of the work of His hands, and so kept them 
ignorant of their awful danger, as a fowler hides his snare, 
or a hunter conceals his trap. No wonder our author ap- 
proaches his subject with "terror and awe;" but, alas, how 
manifest is it that his great anxiety is to " conjecture" some- 
thing in the matter that shall give some ground of support 
for his theological conclusions from Scripture. But Nature 
is an incorrigible enemy to all his inquiries of her, and he 
plunges into " the gulf of night" in search of light, but finds 
himself in " infinite gloom," and in his zeal tries to conjec- 
ture " accents of immortal sorrow," and labors to find some 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE, 15 

" probable" reason for believing it may be so. He says — 

" Leaving out of view for the present the claims of justice, we 
look now simply at those of infinite wisdom, administering a univer- 
sal and eternal system ; and we inquire whether there may be, or 
rather whether we are sure there may not be, in the infinite and eternal 
economy of God, fitting and adequate uses demanding everlastingly 
the continued existence of even morally lost beings 1" 

That is, the eternal conscious existence, in hopeless and 
unmitigated torture, of some of the children of men. He 
proceeds to say — 

" In the first place, could we not see, could we not even conjec- 
ture such uses, it by no means necessarily' follows that we should be 
entitled to affirm there are none." 

But we are " entitled to affirm" that nature reveals none ; 
and the " conjecture" of an existence of unmitigated and 
unending woe, where no revelation of such a state had pre- 
viously been made known to the subject liable to it, would 
be an eternal blot on wisdom, to say nothing of honesty, just- 
ice, or benevolence ; and some imaginary use to result from 
such a state, could never wipe out the stain ; it would be 
more unchangeable than the u leopard's spots." 

Our author must know that by far the largest portion of 
the race of Adam never heard of a liability to eternal suffer- 
ings ; and he does not pretend to find, aside from Scripture, 
— which most men never had — " positive proof" of such an 
endless state of torment and woe as he is striving by a con- 
jectures," to prepare our minds for. We cannot but regard 
" infinite wisdom" as highly impeached by the suggestion of 
such a " possible" state for millions to whom that wisdom 
never manifested their liability till they are hopelessly in- 
volved in it. If such be " infinite wisdom" it looks like the 
wisdom of the serpent, seeking to ruin by keeping its victims 
in the dark. 

Nor is our author to satisfy our minds by talking about . 

" the administration of an empire whose measures are the universe 
and eternity." 



16 



IMMORTALITY I 



As if that fact — of which nature does not inform us — is 
conclusive, that infinite wisdom may make vast multitudes 
endlessly and hopelessly miserable without ever having in- 
formed them of its design to do so. We have to do with 
nature in the government of this tcorlcL and not of some 
real or imaginary one somewhere else ; of which nature gives 
us no information, for the obvious reason, it does not con- 
cern us ; and with its laws and government we have nothing 
to do ; such laws and government — if they exist — have no 
claims on us ; nor are we to regulate our conduct or form 
our opinions with any regard to " possibilities" existing 
there. 

;{ Our inability to discover uses" [for endless existence in u immor- 
tal sorrow' 5 ] " does not authorize us to deny that there are any, ;> 
saith our author. 

If there are any " uses" in it, we are authorized to deny 
that nature has revealed any such state or its uses ; and as 
we are now only on " the argument from nature" we will not 
attempt " universal negatives," but wait and see if our au- 
thor finds " clear positive revelation" to sustain the idea of 
"immortal sorrow." 

11 The existence of the wicked even here presents, in many of its 
aspects, a mystery as difficult of complete solution as their existence 
hereafter; and their existence beyond the grave at all. a mystery as 
difficult as an existence forever, 5 ' adds our author. 

The existence of the wicked here, in a state of trial and 
discipline, where reformation may better their condition, and 
where their counsel and aid, in many things, often is a ben- 
efit to the community, is not " a mystery as difficult of com- 
plete solution as their existence" in a state of eternal and 
hopeless torment ; where there is no design of their reforma- 
tion, and where their counsel and work is eternally against 
all good. As to " their existence beyond the grave at all," 
nature makes no such revelation ; and in the argument from 
nature we admit of no such existence ; death eternally clo- 
ses their existence, so far as nature is our teacher. 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



17 



£i Manifestly until we know fully the reason why God permits the 
existence of moral evil and of wicked men now, we are i<ot compe- 
tent to affirm that they will not exist eternally," saith our author. 

Because we cannot fully solve the mystery of the present 
existence of the wicked, in a state where reformation is pos- 
sible, and where, at all events, death will close the career of 
their wickedness, must we believe they may exist eternally 
where reformation is impossible or useless, and where death 
is never to put an end to their wickedness ? But, our author 
says, because of our ignorance of the uses of the existence 
of the wicked now, all the objections against their endless 
existence, might be 

"summarily disposed of " * * * " with the question of the Pa- 
triarch of Hz, asked ages ago but never answered. ' Why do the 
wicked live]' We might then leave all presumptions from nature 
against their endless existence, to wait an answer to this interro- 
gatory." 

We might answer all " possible conjectures" about the 
" uses of the endless existence of the wicked" with the prayer 
of the King of Israel and type of Messiah, offered to God 
" ages ago," and most certainly to be " answered" — u Oh let 
the wickedness of the wicked come to ax end." "We 
might then leave all presumptions from nature" — if there be 
any — for the " endless existence of the wicked;" together 
with all those possible conjectures of the " uses" of their 
wickedness not coming to an end, to sink into their merited 
oblivion. 

Why should we now be called upon to follow our author 
through his " countless ways" of attempting to show that the 
"uses" of the wicked and their wickedness may prevent them 
and it from ever having an " end 11 ? To argue from the pres- 
ent state, in which each individual — righteous or wicked — - 
has a mixture of good and evil, of joy and pain ; and where 
their condition may be improved, or life end, to a state where 
unmixed evil and sorrow shall eternally continue and in- 
crease, is to argue, it seems to us, without any analogy, and 



18 



IMMORTALITY I 



without any tendency to produce conviction on the thought- 
ful mind. Our author proceeds : 

'•'Judging from the methods God has taken to instruct human 
minds in this world, we have reason to believe that created mind 
must he taught — can only be taught effectually — that knowledge of 
the Creator requisite as a power of moral government, by experience 
and practical illustration. It is upon this principle, and with this 
mode of education flowing from it, that the government of this world 
is conducted. And we have no reason, inferring from the nature of 
mind, to doubt it will be the same in all worlds; that it maybe the 
same with new orders and new stages of being which shall emerge 
in the light of a million of aeons hence, just as much as in this mor- 
tal life, and beneath these heavens." 

If this reason is correct, then sin and wickedness are just 
as necessary and essential as holiness and virtue. Nor is 
that all : the first created mind could not possibly " be 
taught" at all ; for it is not to be supposed that that mind 
had a " practical illustration" and " experience" of the 
u power of moral government" over wicked beings which 
had no existence ; unless the Creator himself be supposed to 
be that wicked being; which is a blasphemy not to be ad- 
mitted. 

Furthermore, the beings inhabiting " this world* have had 
no "practical illustration and experience" of unmixed sin 
and suffering, and where reformation was unavailing and im- 
possible. If the same systen then is to be acted upon " in 
all worlds" there will be no such state as that of " immor- 
tal sorrow;" and there may be suffering and sorrow for the 
saints themselves, as they do suffer much in " this world;" 
besides, " life" has always been " mortal beneath these hea- 
vens;" and if ''government" is to be the same in " all 
wmlds\ life may be, nay must be mortal there, to both 
saints and sinners, so far as our author's argument proves 
anything. But we stand corrected : he does not design to 
give " positive proof " of his " hypothesis ;" and it is well he 
did not design to do it ; for had he succeeded in producing 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



19 



such proof, all distinction between good and evil would 
have been abolished forever. 

" What ground," asks our author, " have we for assuming that in 
the infinite march of being there will not always be beginners ; al- 
ways in the universe, a fresh childhood, as well as the rich perfec- 
tion of maturer culture and experience in the older born sons of 
God 1 What reason have we to suppose that the creative energy is 
not, like the love of God, infinite 1 Who shall dare prescribe limits 
to either, or to the number of God's children 1 Why, then, may we as- 
sume that the present order of means requisite to form, guard and 
perfect virtue in created minds — requisite from the very essential 
nature of mind itself — to have no place in the coming cycle of 
being'?" 

Here our author stumbles at the outset. The question is 
not whether new-born intelligences will be eternally coming 
into existence? that may be granted : nor is it, whether " the 
present order of means'' is " to have no place in the" train- 
ing of those " new born" ones ? but whether an entirely new 
and unheard of system of government for the training of 
them is to be introduced ? viz : the use of a system of tor- 
ment, woe, and unmitigated sufferings, and hopeless anguish, 
where reformation is both unavailing and impossible ? Is 
God to train these " new born " ones produced by His crea- 
tive power by such a system ? Has such been the " requi- 
site" method of teaching in " this world?" And if the sys- 
tem of training for these supposed new born ones, is to be 
like that of " this world," we ask, if the exhibition of evil 
and wickedness must not arise from themselves, and not from 
seeing another race of beings, not of themselves, .constantly 
before their eyes, given over to " immortal sorrow ?" The 
fact is, there is no analogy in the system of the government 
of this world and that conjectured by our author : they are 
as dissimilar as light and darkness : as unlike as justice and 
revenge. There is no concord, agreement, or likeness be- 
tween them, that we can discover. 



20 



DDIOE,TALITY. 



The idea is expressed by our author, that the wicked may 
be kept in " immortal sorrow,'' because there may be a 

i: necessity of experimental lessons and historic illustration 55 * * * 
c< to the ever rising orders of being ; and possibly, also, to those of 
older date, for the perfection and eternal security of their virtue." 

"Possibly" those * older*' beings are so unbelieving that 
history is wholly unavailing to convince them of the evil of 
rebellion ; and that they have so little confidence in God's 
word, that they would have no " security of their virtue" if 
their ears could not hear " the accents of immortal sorrow," 
and their eyes see the goblins of Almighty wrath writhing in 
eternal pain ! and possibly they would need all this for their 
"perfection' ! Truly, such must be hard to 'perfect! and 
we cannot wonder at it, considering in what school our author 
thinks " possibly " they may be taught. TTe think it much 
more probable they would learn rebellion than " virtue " 
under such teaching. Xo such teaching has the God of na- 
ture allowed in the school of this world;" and therefore — 
on our author's own assumption of a corresponding adminis- 
tration in other worlds — no such teaching is to find place 
elsewhere. He goes on — 

The same difficulty in the existence of souls morally lost, has to 
be met this instant, that has to be met through the infinite here- 
after. ; ' 

Does our author know that any soul is morally and hope- 
lessly lost while it exists here ? How does he know but 
that the moment of the wicked man's death is the point 
where he was hopelessly lost in moral pollution ? And how 
does he know that that fact, known only to the Divine mind, 
was not the true reason why his death occurred at that very 
point ? 

" The present moment is a part of eternity, and is subject to its 
logic and its la^rs ; and what that logic and those laws permit here, 
they may permit forever," saith our author. 

If so, then the sinner — if his living existence is to be end- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE, 



21 



lessly continued — may expect God will give him a great 
many blessings and comforts in hell : yea, a much larger 
share of pleasure than pain ; for the laws of this life did not 
forbid it ; and what " those laws permit here, they may per- 
mit forever," we are told ; and as a matter of experience, the 
sinner had a large share of enjoyment here ; hence he may 
expect it hereafter ; and then what becomes of the " possi- 
bility' 5 of eternal and unmitigated pain? It has vanished 
" like the baseless fabric of a vision." 

Our author goes on thus — il The wicked may therefore endure, to 
exhibit the eternal discomfiture and the hopeless impotency of sin. 
For aught we know, certainly, it may be requisite they should do so. 
And the greater and mightier and more cunning and desperate, may 
be the malignant power baffled and coerced into the service of Divine 
wisdom, the more strikingly and impressively will this lesson be ex- 
hibited ; and the more will God's glory of strength and knowledge 
and goodness shine forth to the educating and strengthening of vir- 
tue in the elder or future orders of the saved." 

Why should such an exhibition of " Divine wisdom," &c, 
not have been made to the human race at the outset ? Why 
not have given them a manifestation of the awful sufferings 
of some previous race of sinners, and so kept our " new 
born" race back from sin ? or were there no sinners in all 
eternity past ? If not, how did " new born" beings ever 
maintain holiness in that infinite duration behind us ? How 
happens it that sin and sufferings were not necessary to keep 
" new born" beings, then, in the paths of virtue and obedi- 
dience ? It is singular, truly, that sin and giant sinners, 
with their giant torments, and the giant " coercion " of 
them " into the service of Divine wisdom," should be re- 
served for the race of Adam : and this race should be the 
manufacturing establishment to produce giant sinners to 
keep after " born " being in the ways of virtue, and to " per- 
fect elder" ones. 

But it so happens, after all, that in " the present part of 
eternity," which is " subject to " the "logic and laws" of 



22 



IMMORTALITY I 



" the infinite hereafter,'* that no giant sinners are suffered to 
live long ; and all of the in meet death, or are cut off by vio- 
lence, sooner or later; so that if the " Divine administration 
now*' is evidence of what it will be "through the infinite 
hereafter," we need no stronger proof that u all the vjicked 
will God destroy fl and that " the wickedness of the wicked" 
shall " come to an endP 

Our author saith — " To breed the requisite horror and fear of sin. 
it may he, that nothing else will suffice, than the spectacle of its 
final, complete, and everlasting perdition — nothing less than the 
frightful examplar of an immortal soul in immortal ruin." i: One 
example," he says, Ci of a being in the terrible maturity of evil, may 
be equivalent to innumerable ones of lesser date ! so that in truth, 
benevolence may require its continuance, instead of multiplied cases 
of more recent fall from virtue.' 5 

Unfortunately for our author, the laws of this "part of 
eternity" — or, " the present moment"— and the " Divine ad- 
ministration" under them, with " its logic," are all adverse 
to his " may be" in the " infinite hereafter." The mightiest 
sinners under the present administration sooner or later die. 
Must the poor race of Adam — though without a precedent — 
furnish " examples" of endless, or " immortal sorrows" for 
all other created beings, past and future ? while they, them- 
selves, are denied a solitary " example" of "an immortal 
soul in immortal ruin" — i. e. in 11 immortal" torments — for 
their own benefit ? no such " example" ever having been 
given them ! If such examples are so potent, what becomes 
of that " benevolence" that has so constantly, for six thou- 
sand years, withheld the " one example" that is so effectually 
to stimulate to virtue and keep back from sin ? " Benevo- 
lence" is profaned by the thought ; and a voice comes up on 
the ear, saying — (; If they hear not the teachings now grant- 
ed them, neither would they be persuaded though one rose 
from the dead." Any pretence that such an " example" — as 
our author supposes — would be effectual in leading men to 
virtue, or preserving them therein is without even the sem- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



23 



blace of a ;j may be."' Base and servile indeed must be that 
mind that could be drawn to virtue, or be made to continue 
therein by such a horrible exhibition of wrath on a power- 
less enemy. Then to suppose, infinite and Divine wisdom 
could find no other way to secure obedience and virtue, in 
the souls He had made, than to exercise His almighty power 
in holding in eternal being and torment a worm of the dust 
— such is man — is an impeachment of His character which 
we dare not allow even to come within the range of a " may 
be." What ! so abhor sin as to eternally perpetuate it ! and 
never let it " come to o.yi end!" The thought is not ad- 
missible ; and nature has no such voice relating to indivi- 
duals. 

Furthermore, the case supposed as *' : possible.'* is utterly 
at variance with any laws in this " part of eternity.' * and in 
the nature of mind, " Virtue" — whatever might be said of 
obedience — must be produced, in created beings, not by the 
exhibition of evil in so horrible a light as to make it dis- 
gusting. Xo : evil must have charms, or there can be no 
temptation in it. nor any virtue in avoiding it. " The tree'' 
must be " good for food," or " pleasant to the eye," or •'■ desi- 
able to make one wise." else it is no trial nor virtue to avoid 
it. The "possible* 1 exhibition, contemplated by our author, 
suppose evil and sin to be presented in such a horrible man- 
ner, and with such awful aspects, with giant tortures, as shall 
make it in no possible way desirable to share in it, What 
virtue then can there be in avoiding it '? Just none at all : 
and the " hypothesis' is stamped with all the characteristics 
of a manifest " absurdity." 

Another " possibility'' of our author runs as follows — 

: ' It may be that holiness could wear its proper charm of beauty 
and bliss, only in contrast with its hideous antithesis. Such a self- 
exhibition of sin being needful here and now who shall say it may 
not be so forever V 7 

Thus " sin is needful !" as necessary as the exhibition of 



24 



IMMORTALITY : 



" holiness" in 11 its proper charm of beauty !" Had it not 
been for some rebel against the Divine government what an 
uncharming thing holiness must have been ! But we forbear : 
it was only a " conjecture" of a " possibility " by our 
author : yet such an exhibition of " sin" if " needful here 
and now" has never been made in this " part of eternity" as 
that our author contemplates " through the infinite hereaf- 
ter." No, nothing that has any analogy to it, as we have 
before shown. 

Our author thus proceeds : — " Now apart from all positive affirm- 
ance of the perpetuity of the present uses of the wicked, it is clear 
until one is prepared to prove a negative of this, — a universal and 
eternal negative, — he is not warranted from nature in assuming the 
annihilation of the wicked ; certainly not, in dogmatising on this 
subject, to the contradiction or wresting of the declarations of Reve- 
lation." 

No such wicked exist on earth, as our author conjectures 
for the " infinite hereafter :" nor can he show that there is, 
or can be any " present uses" for such wicked, unless he can 
show that to be true which nature and experience contradict ; 
and surely such an attempt would look very much like an 
attempt " to prove a universal" if not an " eternal negative." 
The fact is, no such exhibition of sin and sinners, of sorrow 
and torment, of hopelessness and despair, of unmixed evil 
and destitution of all goodness, and an eternal barrier to re- 
conciliation, as our author's hypothesis contemplate, has ever 
been made. Nature has no voice to sustain him in such a 
position ; and when we come to " Revelation" we shall see 
who wrests and contradicts its declarations, the advocates of 
the immortality of the wicked or those who believe " the wick- 
edness of the wicked" shall " come to an end;" and that 
" all the wicked will God destroy ;" because " the soul that 
sinneth it shall die" We can afford to wait till our author 
gets to " Revelation" on this part of the subject. But we 
are " warranted from nature" to believe — not to "assume" — 
" the annihilation of the wicked :" nature teaches no other 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



25 



end for them ; and we shall yet see, perhaps, that " Revela- 
tion" and nature are in harmony, as they must be, if both 
proceed from an unmixed fountain of wisdom and truth. 

Saith our author — " Amid the uses of the wicked here, one, emi- 
nently, is to prove, brace, nerve, and animate virtue. May it not 
possibly be so hereafter 1" 

This idea of u the uses of the wicked 5 ' seems to haunt our 
author. According to his theology the wicked seem — of the 
two classes — to be more useful, and to answer better " uses," 
than the righteous. It would appear as if the virtuous could 
hardly be proved, braced, nerved, and animated to virtue, if 
it were not for the useful wicked. Really, we would like to 
know if our author is a post-millenarian ? one who believes 
the coming of Christ, the second time, is a thousand years 
after " all shall know the Lord from the least to the great- 
est." If so, and his theory of " the uses of the wicked here" 
is true, we may expect to see a very inferior race of Chris- 
tians in the Millennium to those we have now, as they will 
have none of the useful wicked to " prove, brace, nerve, and 
animate virtue." Alas ! that the so called " happy day," 
when " the millennium shall be ushered in," and which we 
have heard so highly extolled for the piety and consecration 
to God then to be manifested, is likely to vanish away into a 
very inferior race of Christians, because they have not " the 
uses of the wicked" we have now. Behold and see your 
millennium, ye post-millenarians, stript of a most important 
element of its happiness and virtue : there are no wicked 
there ! But we are of those who have no faith in these im- 
aginary uses of the wicked : " one sinner destroy eth much 
good" was a sentiment recorded three thousand years ago in 
a Book which our author will look into before he has done 
with his argument for " immortal sorrow" and " the immor- 
tality of the wicked." Till we meet him in that Book we. 
leave our quotation as an offset to his assumption of " the 
uses of the wicked" so often repeated. 



26 



IMMORTALITY I 



Saith our author — " No language could express God's estimate of 
sin, like visible disease and pain, and the thousand forms of indivi- 
dual death, with occasional more vast and awful expressions of his 
displeasure in deluge, pestilence and earthquake. The terrors of 
his abhorrence of sin must, in this life, look out at times on man 
from a burning Sodom or Jerusalem, or a deluged world, in order to 
quicken earth's moral consciousness by an outflashmg of his own." 

There is no likeness or resemblance, in any of these cases 
with the incessant, unmitigated, hopeless, and eternal pain 
and anguish, that our author is striving to show may possibly 
exist " in the infinite hereafter." If pain and sorrow were 
admitted to exist there, there is no reason in nature why it 
should exist in the horrible and hopeless form our author 
anticipates, unless the "elder saints are harder to govern 
there than here, or the " new born beings" — if such there 
should be. — are more stupid and intractable than is reason- 
able to suppose infinite wisdom would hereafter create, seeing 
Adam's race have done no better. 

In the worst cases, " in this life," our author has produced 
as his analogies, death has terminated the pain and sorrows 
of the visited sinners, so far as nature can teach us. Why 
then, if nature and analogy are to guide us, conclude such 
will not. be the result hereafter, supposing the wicked to en- 
ter there ? Nor even there would nature teach us that they 
should die again till they had another trial, to see if they 
might not do better in their new state. What reason then 
has our author to make the following inquiries'? — 

il Are we prepared to affirm that Divine displeasure may not find 
it requisite to write its definition in an everlasting ruin 1 — that the 
wrath that here burns below Jerusalem and Sodom, below the foun- 
dation of the mountains and the deep, may not burn to the depths of 
an eternal hell % If such a self-utterance of God be necessary here, 
can we prove that it may not be so hereafter 7 and if so during one 
period of the hereafter, may it not be so forever 1 When can the 
universe live without a seen and felt God 1 When can its sentiment 
of justice stand, except in this vision and feeling 1 And how shall 
God be felt and seen, otherwise than as he is thus practically reflect- 
ed and defined % n 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



27 



Our author has fallen into the " infinite gloom" where he 
went to " apply the ear" — at the commencement of his argu- 
ment — to see if he could not hear " the accents of immortal 
sorrow." The sentiments now uttered have covered, in fact, 
the eternity past as well as the future. Were there no " new 
born beings" in the past infinite ? If so, did they find be- 
ings in an " eternal hell," that they could have a practical 
exhibition of God's " justice ?" " When can the universe 
live without a seen and felt God ?" asks our author. If this 
question has any application to the question before us, it 
amounts to this — " When can the universe live without an 
eternal hell of immortal sorrow, sin and torment ?" So that 
such a hell must have been the abode of some beings from 
the first moment of the days of the " universe," or it could 
not "live." But to Adam's race of "new born beings," it 
seems, Divine wisdom did not see fit to give the " practical 
and awful expressions of his displeasure," that " eternal 
hell" of " immortal sorrow;" but left the poor creatures to 
furnish multitudes more victims for that useful state ! " If 
such a self-utterance of God be necessary hereafter," to "new 
born beings," was it not equally necessary to the new born 
beings of Adam's line ? And if an " eternal hell " of " im- 
mortal sorrow " did exist, does it not seem as if Divine wis- 
dom and benevolence would have given this " new born" race 
a practical exhibition of the sorrows and woes of sin, by un- 
capping that hell to sight, seeing it " may be" so effectual 
hereafter to other " new born beings ?" Not to do so would 
seem to indicate that infinite wisdom was overpowered by the 
" uses of the wicked," so that the number of them should be 
mightily increased ! Alas, for a theory that must plunge 
into such "infinite gloom" to "conjecture" "possibilities" 
to reconcile us to the idea of eternal pain and " immortal 
sorrow !" Our author adds— 

£> ' Other modes there may be, but if so 3 they are beyond the pre- 
sent scope of our experience and our faculties. It is for the objector 



28 



IMMORTALITY I 



to prove them before he assumes a change of God's present eco 
nomy." 

This is truly cool — almost refreshing. After all, the 
multitude of " conjectures'' of " possibilities" — our author 
has labored to impress on our mind — "may be" all fancy, 
and without any foundation. And for our comfort we are 
allowed " to prove," if we can, "a change of God's present 
economy !" Now, that's just the thing we do not wish to 
prove; for under the present economy of God sin and suf- 
fering end in death, and nature reveals nothing beyond. — 
Under the present economy, the " orthodox" say, as long as 
there is life " the vilest sinner may return :" so that sin and 
suffering may be wiped away, and the sinner become holy 
and happy. If the wicked go into the Cc infinite hereafter," 
as conscious beings, it is for our author u to prove, before" 
he " assumes, a change of God's present economy :" which if 
he cannot do he is quite as likely to establish the conversion 
of sinners in " the infinite hereafter," as that their case is one 
of " immortal sorrow." Under " God's present economy" 
neither sin or suffering are perpetual ; and the general char- 
acter of God's dealings — -while life lasts — is goodness to the 
evil and unthankful. " So it may be hereafter," if the 
wicked a live beyond the grave ;" the evidence for which, if 
found at all, is not found in nature. 

Our author adds — <£ Looking at all these aspects of the case, are 
we ready to affirm that Divine wisdom requires the annihilation of 
the wicked % Yea, that it may not eternally forbid it ? If it forbids 
it now, who shall travel down the infinite hereafter, and fix the date 
when it may let the guilty drop into eternal nothing V 3 

" Divine wisdom" does not "forbid now" — under the 
"present economy". — "the annihilation of the wicked;" as 
the cases of Sodom and the old world—our author has re- 
ferred to — abundantly prove : for they were annihilated, so 
far as nature's testimony can be relied on : and if " Divine 
wisdom required" their annihilation, " who shall travel down 
the infinite hereafter, and fix the" sufferings and woe of the 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



29 



wicked there in " immortal sorrow ?" or> affirm " the guilty' 
shall not 11 drop into eternal nothing?" Very true, our 
author does not do that ! he affirms nothing ! but only deals 
in insinuations and conjectures ! But we wait patiently to 
see if he pursues the same course in his appeals to " Revela- 
tion." 

Our author proceeds with his argument from nature as 
follows : 

Ci But even if the above mentioned uses'' [those he had dwelt on] 
<: did not require Divine wisdom to perpetuate the existence of the 
morally lost, yet natural reason might hesitate whether Divine justice 
would not still keep the ruined and guilty soul from annihilation ; 
at least whether it does not leave the question fairly open, and to be 
determined by the natural and obvious sense of language in Reve- 
lation.'' 

We are perfectly willing, and anxious, to have the ques- 
tion " determined by the natural and obvious sense of 
language in Revelation;" and w T e sincerely hope our author 
will not forget this implied pledge to adhere to the natural 
and obvious sense of language when we come to Revelation. 

He goes on to inquire — " Are we perfectly sure that the satisfac- 
tion to justice, which the wicked actually owe in the present time 
every moment, and which may be due through each moment of 
eternal duration, will not forever forbid the dismissal of the debtors 
to annihilation V 1 

Our author's inquiry implies that possibly infinite ivis- 
dom can never find out a way whereby to meet the claims 
of Divine justice. For, if the sinner keeps eternally ahead 
of justice, by adding to his debt, must not justice be eter- 
nally seeking satisfaction in vain ? Where then is ivisdom, 
that it can devise no means to help justice to satisfaction r 
Has the sinner so improved in this short life, that when he 
enters the next, he may practice so wisely, that while jv st ice 
is looking up the old debt and seeking payment, he manages 
to run still deeper in debt, so that justice is outrun in the 
race ? Truly, if the sinner has become such an adept, in 
this imperfect state, and has escaped justice in this world, he 



30 



IMMORTALITY : 



is not likely to be overtaken by it in the next, if his life is 
to extend into that. Our author asks— 

" Is it not true that each new moment of sin puts in its claim 
anew on Divine justice, for new retribution %" 

That may be while men are under law claiming obedience. 
But how is it, when a murderer is led forth to execution, 
suppose he murder a dozen on the way to the gallows ; does 
the law take cognizance of those murders ? Not at all. — 
Who is accountable for those additional murders ? The 
officer of justice, if any body. Why so ? Because it was 
his business to see that the criminal was secured so that ho 
could harm no one. So " natural reason" would affirm; 
and all civilization would cry out against the officer of jus- 
tice for neglect of duty if he allowed the criminal to add 
another murder to his previous ; and still more if he were to 
add to his neglect the offence of contriving to make the mur- 
derer die thirteen deaths, or twelve times harder ones for 
the additional murders. No ; the " hypothesis" of our re- 
spected author, on this topic, is at variance with justice, if 
" natural reason" is to decide. When punishment begins — 
if it is not designed for reformation — the claims of law for 
obedience end. It is the makers and executive officers of the 
law who are to see that the criminal has no further power or 
opportunity to commit crime : not to do this is an act of 
injustice both to the criminal and to community. We be- 
lieve this view is a self-evident one ; and we need not to 
press it further, and might dismiss all that follows in our 
author's argument from justice. It will be expected, how- 
ever, that we should not dismiss it so summarily. 

He says — £< To the question, Shall the atrocious, and cruel," &c, 
" or any of the giant offenders of this life, go out of this world un- 
whipped of justice, to find no retribution beyond % 1 No, 5 you reply. 
1 No, if there be a righteous God, He will, for awhile at least, keep 
back the power of the grave, until justice has had its atonement." 

The C£ reply," our author gives to his question, nature can 
never discover ; because that can neither " keep back the 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



31 



power of the grave" nor look beyond it. Besides, " natural 
reason" is satisfied when a wicked man is dead, and regards 
that as the end of the claims of justice ; and unless a spirit 
of revenge takes the place of reason, it would never think of 
following even a " giant offender" into another state — beyond 
death — to inflict pain. At any rate, we do not know from 
nature that any such thing will occur : nature seems satis- 
fied when an enemy is dead, and wishes not his revival into 
life, unless he could be brought to repentance and reforma- 
tion. 

Our author goes on to inquire — £c But if in his impenitent state 
the punished offender is adding perpetually to his sin, does not each 
new moment of that period of penal woe. claim the next moment fol- 
lowing, also as due to retribution 1 And,' 5 he adds, " this must he 
the case immortally with a soul immortally sinning." 

Let us see if we can look through our author's point in 
this paragraph. Does he, or does he not, believe that the 
wao-es of sin — committed in this life — is immortal woe ? 
If so, how can the position be assumed, or maintained, that 
possibly that penalty will be inflicted, because the sinner, 
while undergoing this " penal woe" — this eternal woe — will 
be " adding to his sin"? Why seek such a refuge for the 
horrible idea of eternal woe ? Is our natural sense . of justice 
shocked at the infliction of such woe, for the sins of this, 
life ? It would seem so ; and hence our author endeavors to 
find some plausible "hypothesis" to quiet this feeling of na- 
ture. But how does he do it ? By supposing the sinner 
adding to his sin while undergoing his punishment for the 
sins of this life. Yet he has informed us of no law the sin- 
ner is then under claiming obedience ; and all nature saitb, 
" Where there is no law there is no transgression." Hence 
our author's "possible" case resolves itself into a simple 
" absurdity V But if he does not believe that the sins of 
this life earn the wages of eternal woe, then, if eternal suf- 
fering is inflicted, all nature must cry out against it as un- 
just. Besides, if the sinner in a future state is where he can 



32 



IMMORTALITY I 



commit sin, he must be under some law which it is possible 
for him to obey. How then can our author tell but that 
instead of the " soul immortally sinning" he may, when un- 
der the discipline of that state, conclude to be evermore obe- 
dient ? Specially, since our author thinks it possible that 
the horrible torture of that state may keep M new born be- 
ings" from sinning and help to " perfect elder'' ones. Hence 
".possibly" it may lead those enduring the " penal woe" to 
conclude best to stop sinning ; then, it seems, our author's 
u natural reason" would judge it might be very doubtful if 
it would accord with (l Divine justice" to continue their 
" sorrows immortally." 

Our author says — " It is clear that the unrepenting, defiant and 
persisting sinner cannot claim, as a matter of justice, that God whom 
he ever defies or disobeys, should deliver him by annihilation from 
the natural consequences of his obduracy in crime. Manifestly he 
could not demand it as his right." 

If God had informed the individual that " the wages of sin 
is death" and "the soul that sinneth it shall die" Justice 
would cease to be " justice" if instead of death, it turned 
aside to inflict an endless life in torment. As to the sin- 
ner's " right" to (l demand annihilation;" it is the " right" 
of the worst criminal to li demand" that no worse punish- 
ment shall be inflicted upon him than what the law clearly 
specifies : and it is an act of injustice to treat any criminal 
otherwise. So far as " nature" is concerned in this " argu- 
ment," if a man is convicted of crime, the penalty of which 
is death, u natural reason" would say, to substitute unnum- 
bered years of torture, over a slow fire, would be an act of 
insufferable injustice ; and the criminal would have a " right" 
to " demand" that he should not be dealt with in this man- 
ner. 

" To speak of an everlasting not-being as an everlasting punish- 
ment, is in our view a misnomer," saith our author 

If our author had only substituted death for li not being" 
he would have had no occasion for his " misnomer." An 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



ss 



everlasting death, implies that the subject was once alive, 
hence, to be everlastingly deprived of life, and eternally to 
remain in death is an £< everlasting punishment" if it is an 
infliction of law against a transgressor. 

Our author goes on — " Such a doom may. be a calamity, a loss 
most dreadful to our instinctive love of existence ; but to term it an 
atonement to justice, is false to the proper idea of that word." 

We do not admire the term " atonement," in this connec- 
tion ; but if our author chooses to use it, he will find it 
equally effectual against endless woe. Does "immortal sor- 
row" make " an atonement to justice ?" If the atonement 
is made the sorrow must cease, unless justice claims more 
than its " right" — which would be injustice. But if the sor- 
row is to be unending, or eternal, then " an atonement to 
justice" is never made, and never can be, unless the end of 
eternal can be reached. Justice eternally seeking atonement 
— satisfaction — but pursues its object in vain — it never 
reaches the point of satisfaction. Our author has a " mis- 
nomer" for "everlasting punishment" when he calls it " im- 
mortal sorrow" or "woe." Justice eternally lags behind its 
claim, and " never, no never" reaches satisfaction ! 

Our author admits, that " everlasting not-being " — death — would 
be " a loss most dreadful to our instinctive love of existence/"' 

Just so we may suppose our Creator regards it ; and 
hence death is the most terrific punishment that He could 
threaten — it is the " capital punishment;" and when it is 
without a revocation it is an " everlasting punishment." It 
is the only " capital" one that " natural reason" can acqui- 
esce in as just for the most " giant" criminal. But our au- 
thor says — 

" It is evident that in this present world, satisfaction of justice to 
God's government implies continuance of existence beyond the 
grave. The human mind instinctively feels this when some enor- 
mous criminal goes out of this life unpunished." 

"We would say — " it is evident," if "justice" really seeks 
" satisfaction," a living " existence beyond the grave" should 



34 



IMMORTALITY 



be altogether denied the transgressor ; then sinning would 
be cut short, so far as the criminal is concerned. But if he 
is to have a living existence in another state — according to 
our author's hypothesis — sinning is to go on eternally, and 
we can hare no assurance that justice will be meted out to 
the sinner, or that justice will any more find " satisfaction 
beyond the grave" than it did " in this present world the 
same reasons may exist then that exist now, " possibly, " for 
not allowing justice to take satisfaction, supposing it not sat- 
isfied by the sufferings of this life and the subsequent death 
of the sinner. Furthermore, how does our author know that 
any " criminal goes out of this life unpunished ?" Has 
he entered into the workings of each individual mind, and 
seen its conflicts, sorrows and distresses ? Has he followed 
that mind in all its secret anguish till death extinguished it ? 
Has he entered into the inmost soul of the Creator, to 
know what burdens He has laid on the wayward sinner ? 
How does he know that the great God — who made man, and 
constituted him as he is — does not see that the burdens of a 
sinful course, ending in death irrevocable, is not a full " sat- 
isfaction" to His justice, even though it might not seem so 
to man who tc looketh on the outward appearance ?" Re- 
venge might call for more; but " possibly" justice docs not. 

But our author continues — " We do not feel that such a departure 
cancels the claims of punishment, but that justice requires he should 
live hereafter." 

What if " we do not feeP 1 it ? Is our author sure that 
this does not arise from a feeling of revenge, rather than a 
sense of justice ? TTe are of opinion that every sanctified 
heart, acting without revenge — as it must, if sanctified — 
would spontaneously say, " He is dead, and that is enough:* 
If one dying on the cross, followed with the most bitter 
malice of his murderers, could pray — " Father, forgive them; 
they know not what they do," how do we know that our feel- 
ing — if we have it — that justice does not get satisfaction in 
this life, or at most by the death of the criminal, is a feeling 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



35 



in harmony with the Divine mind? "Possibly" it is not; 
and our unperverted nature looks upon the torture of the 
worst criminal as an outrage on justice. Punishment of 
criminals for reformation, or to prevent their further crimes, 
our "natural reason" concurs in; but as a mere matter to 
inflict pain, it does not and never can concur in. 

" But, continues our author — " If he is not thus to live again, we 
cannot help feeling he has escaped ; and the violated sentiment of 
justice in our minds and in the government of the universe has no 
atonement." 

These conclusions depend on education, not on " natural 
reason;" for we "cannot help feeling" that the worst crimi- 
nal, cut off eternally from life, and all the bliss and joy of 
an eternal living existence, not only has not "escaped" but 
has a. most fearful retribution visited upon him, whereby ail 
our " sentiment of justice" is fully met. To revive him into 
life, without hope, and simply that he might have " immor- 
tal sorrow," would violate, we believe, ihe unperverted " sen- 
timent of justice" in every human heart. It is common to 
hear men condemn those who speak against iheir enemies 
when dead. They consider it an outrage to " follow a man 
into the grave." They seem to regard death as having can- 
celled all the claims we can have agaiost our worst enemy ; 
and nothing but simple revenge could prompt us to wish him 
any further evil. Such is "natural reason." So it seems 
to us. 

Our author next endeavors to establish the idea that death 
— or "the forfeiture of existence" — is not an " atonement" 
to justice for sin. He says — 

Cl Forfeiture is punishment, when it is the withdrawal of a right— 
of that which is one's own, — not merely the refusal to extend a gift 
or gratuity." * * * 11 The mere withholding from vice a reward 
due to virtue, or the withdrawal or non-extension of a pure gratuity, 
we do not regard as a punishment or retribution ; because the goods 
taken away are not the criminal's right ; they are in no proper sense, 
the man's own." 

Thus the penalty of death is no punishment. Adam, for 



36 



IMMORTALITY I 



example, had no right to life ; It was " a gift or gratuity," 
bestowed upon him by his Creator. TVhen he was told if 
he eat of a certain tree, " thou shall surely die" it was de- 
claring that there should be a " withdrawal or non-extension 
of a pure gratuity,*' and hence, our author, on his u hypo- 
thesis,'- could ,; not regard" it n as a punishment or retri- 
bution ; because the" life i ' taken away" was ,% 'not" Adam's 
" right ;" it was " in no proper sense the man's own." We 
do not know but such a position satisfies our author's " nat- 
ural reason," but we doubt if it will satisfy that of many 
others. u Death is the wages of sin," and therefore is its 
punishment : but we forbear pressing this point till we meet 
our author in " Revelation." 

He adds — ct The withdrawinent of rife was simply the discontinu- 
ance of a gratuitous boon, and not to ee was simply not to suffer 
— a mere negation of all punishment as well as of all favor/"' 

This mode of argument sets at naught the greatest of all 
penalties known in " nature ;" and to us certainly looks like 
a simple " absurdity." TTe use the word absurdity^ because 
our author, at the outset of this argument, challenged the 
disproof of his conjectural hypotheses , by their being shown 
to be " either illegitimate, absurd, or unreal ;" and we think 
several of his positions are all three ; and particularly the 
positions we have just considered. TTe wish it distinctly 
understood that in using the term absurdity, no disrespect 
is intended to our worthy author. >Ve know well the diffi- 
culties he has to encounter from nature in an attempt to sus- 
tain the idea of the " immortality of the wicked." VTe doubt 
not he is honestly endeavoring to reconcile our " natural rea- 
son" to the idea of " immortal sorrow" and " eternal pain 
such an effort must be a desperate one, and all our ideas of 
death — deprivation of life — being a punishment, must be 
swept away to reach the end. If our author can succeed 
here he expects a summary disposal of the subject by his 
construction of the language of " Revelation." But we will 
not forestall him there. 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



37 



Punishment," adds our author, " is something positive, imply 
ing in its very idea, a future — & subsequence to crime" 

And is not death u a subsequence to crime ?" and is it not 
" something positive 1 5 in its infliction ? Does human law, or 
" natural reason," require a murderer,' for example, to be 
kept from dying in order that his punishment should be 
" something positive ?" But again our author says — 

" Eternal perdition is not merely the sins of a brief, immature, 
dim-lit life, paid off with an immortality of pain ; but it is eternal 
sinning, every moment freshly demanding fresh retribution. For 
manifestly, a sinful soul not repenting, though under the scourge of 
retribution, only perpetuates sin ; yea becomes fiercer and madder 
in guilt by its very suffering." 

We thought our author would land there. Punishment 
is never inflicted, in fact. But we have yet to learn our au- 
thor's authority for his " hypothesis,*' that a man undergoing 
a final retribution can either sin or be held responsible for 
any conduct that may then occur. Nature does not teach it. 
" Natural reason'' has not discovered it ; and hence no hu- 
man laws recognize such crimes in a condemned murderer. 
If our author finds in " Revelation" such doctrine we shall 
have the benefit -of his knowledge when he shall produce a 
" Thus saith the Lord" for it; till then we will only add, 
it looks to us like an "absurdity" and altogether "unreal," 
for reasons which we have assigned in the previous part of 
our review. Our author adds — 

11 A sinner incorrigible, morally lost — such as our argument here 
considers, — will justice dismiss such a soul from being 1" 

" Such a soul," in such a condition, undergoing final pun- 
ishment, as our author's "argument" supposes, is " unreal" 
— the supposition seems an " absurdity and hence the ar- 
gument, built upon it, " illegitimate." To the question, 
" Will justice dismiss such a soul from being ?" we will 
answer when the existence of "such a soul" is proved; 
which as yet our author has not attempted, but only " con- 
jectured" as a "possible" case. We might much more 



38 



IMMORTALITY. 



properly ask him — Will God inflict the penalty of death ? — 
Shall " the soul that sinneth die ?" or will it be kept in 
eternal living existence, because an imaginary justice will not 
allow God to do as He has said? 

The idea of our author of " perpetual new guilt demand- 
ing perpetual new punishment, and perpetual new punish- 
ment requiring perpetual new extension of being," might be 
of some value in this argument if he could show that the 
punishment is not death, and that the punished are in a 
probationary state while undergoing punishment. Till this 
is done some will justly think his position both " unreal " 
and " absurd." 

His effort to clear the " justice and benevolence" of God 
for putting a man on a course of life " involving such re- 
sults," is creditable to his heart : and we agree with our re- 
spected author that the " foreknowledge" of God does " not 
affect guilt if it does not take away freedom ;" but that 
foreknowledge in a Being at liberty to create or not create 
sensitive creatures would seem to make it inconsistent with 
wisdom and love to give being to creatures whose destiny 
would certainly be such as our author speaks of. Bishop 
Newton thus speaks on this point : 

il Nothing can "be more contrary to the divine nature and attributes 
than for a God all-wise, all-powerful, all-good, all-perfect, to bestow 
existence on any beings, whose destiny, he foresees and foreknows, 
must terminate in wretchedness and misery, without recovery or 
remedy, without respite or end. £ God is love,' and he would rather 
have not given life, than render that life a torment and curse to all 
eternity. Imagine a creature, nay, imagine numberless creatures 
produced out of nothing, delivered over to torments of endless ages, 
without the least hope or possibility of relaxation or redemption. 
Imagine it you may, but you can never seriously believe it, nor reconcile 
it to God and goodness. God could never make any [creature] whose 
end he foreknew would be misery everlasting. The Lord proclaims 
himself, Exodus 34: 6. 7, 1 The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keep- 
ing mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and 
sin;' but how can such attributes consist with a system of irre- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



3^ 



coverable vengeance for thousands, transgressions never to be for- 
given, and torments never to have an end V — Newton's Works. Vol. 
6tk, London Edition, 1787. Dissertation 60, " On the Final State 
and Condition of Man''' 

Such is the utterance of " natural reason;" not of the 
mind of a weak man, but one of the strongest of the age. — 
We do not see how it is possible to come to any other con- 
clusion in contemplating the character of the Creator, as a 
whole. 

We agree with our author that whatever may be the " cir- 
cumstances" of man's "moral trial," in this life, they are 
" fair and equitable but we maintain that man is entitled 
to a clear and distinct announcement of the penalty in case 
of failure ; and that he shall not be left to " conjectures" and 
"possibilities;" or to find out by some speculation, when 
death is announced as the penalty that it does not mean 
death proper, but eternal torture! Such an administration 
"natural reason" cannot but pronounce unjust and cruel ; 
and no pretence that " possibly" the " moral order of the 
universe" may " demand " such unrevealed tortures can ever 
clear that administration of the charge of duplicity and un- 
justifiable neglect in government. No such state of endless 
woe has nature made known to the race of Adam ; and if 
u Revelation" has, that " Revelation" has never been in pos- 
session of the great majority of men. Where then is the 
ground in nature or reason for inflicting " immortal sorrow" 
or " eternal pai?i" on sinners of Adam's race ? Especially 
for plunging them into a state of punishment where reforma- 
tion is impossible, and sin is made an eternal necessity ? — 
Such a punishment unperverted " natural reason" must de- 
clare " absurd and unreal" and therefore an impossibility 
under the government of a holy, wise, and just Being. Mo- 
loch devoured his victims, and their tortures were but for a 
moment. Nature shudders at that even; but Moloch's con- 
duct was mercy compared with that we are called to believe 



40 



IMMORTALITY : 



" may possibly" take place in the government of men by 
their Creator. 

The general remarks of our author on the fairness of 
man's moral trial, and of his freedom in that trial, we see 
no ground to dissent from. A few expressions, however, 
call for a passing notice. He asks — 

" Is not freedom, though fearful, a glorious gift % Essential as it 
is to virtue, who would wish it withheld, even though bringing a 
liability to an eternal fall 1 The chances, the opportunity, the facul- 
ty of an endless life — even with the risk of an endless ruin—who 
would not regard the offer as a mighty boon V 

To the first of these questions, we answer, Yes. To the 
second, we reply, we would not have " freedom withheld," 
even with its " liability;" To the third question, if our 
author would change one word — which a true antithesis re- 
quires — we should say u the offer, with the risk, is a mighty 
boon." Had he substituted death for " ruin 1 '' we should 
have responded — amen. It would then read — " The chances, 
the opportunity, the faculty of an endless life — even with 
the risk of an endless death — who would not regard the offer 
as a mighty boon ?" This would express truth, and must 
commend itself to the " natural reason" of all reasonable 
men. But as the question is presented by our author it is 
quite another matter. He means by ruin that state of end 
less sinning and suffering — of hopeless torment and anguish 
— which is to run parallel with the eternal future. We are 
confident that no man, fully understanding the liability to 
such a state, and the chances of his probationary scene ter- 
minating in that state, if put to his choice, would accept the 
present life or consider it a " boon" at all, even though 
" possibly" he might gain a state of endless felicity. The 
hazard would be too fearful, and human reason would turn 
pale at the risk : and we cannot perhaps better illustrate 
this point than by giving an extract from a sermon by 
Saurin on " The eternal misery of hell" He says : 

" I sink under the weight of this subject; and I declare, when I 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATTf&E. 



41 



see my friends, my relations, the people of my charge — when I think 
that I, that you, that we are all threatened with these torments — 
when I see. in the lukewarmness of my devotions, in the langor of 
my love, in the faintness of my resolutions and designs, the least 
evidence, though it be only probable or presumptive, of my future 
misery, yet I find in the thought a mortal poison, which diffuses it- 
self into every period of my life, rendering society tiresome, nourish- 
ment insipid, pleasure disgustful, and life itself a cruel bitter — I 
cease to wonder that a fear of hell has made some melancholy, and 
others mad ; that it has inclined some to expose themselves to a living- 
martyrdom by fleeing from all commerce with the rest of mankind, 
and others to suffer the most violent and terrible torments." 

We have given this extract from the American Tract 
Society's Tracts, No. 277. Can any state of mind be more 
natural to a sincere believer in eternal misery than that 
of Mr. Saurin ? Would any sane man, of his o^nfree choice, 
be placed in such a hazardous position ? Would he choose 
to drink of his " mortal poison" through " every period of" 
his " life? making " life itself a cruel bitter" for the possi- 
ble chance of endless happiness, while he is much more like- 
ly to land in that " endless woe," the very thoughts of which 
now fill him with such distress ? 

If all the advocates for the idea of " immortal sorrow," and 
11 eternal pain" believed it a reality, as did Saurin, we 
should not see them walking our streets with those cheerful 
countenances, indulging in the mirth so characteristic to 
many of them, as we now do. We should not see them 
laboring to adorn their outward selves, and engaging in 
schemes of party or self-aggrandizement, as now so often is 
manifest. No : like Saurin, their souls would find a '-mortal 
poison" in the " thought" of the awful hazard of their posi- 
tion ! " The risk of an endless ruin," such as our author 
anticipates, cannot but overbalance " the chances" of a happy 
hereafter to such a degree that never to have had life at all 
must be the choice of any man who really believes " the 
risk." " Natural reason" revolts at such a hazard. Our 
author proceeds- — 



42 



IMMORTALITY '. 



" God would, he must, create free souls, if lie creates any. He has 
created souls that have freely fallen. But seeing them fall, would 
he not expunge their existence % Why then foreseeing , did he create 
them at all % Moreover, he has created, and has seen their fall, and 
has not expunged from being. 1 But he will ultimately do it-' Why 
then did he not do it immediately ? — then, when they fell 1 — at the 
first guilty act !? Why not at the second 1 — the third 1 Can you fix 
a line at which Divine love shall arrest that guilty and lost career % 
Are you sure there is a line ? Mere conjectures is a poor founda- 
tion for assumption on a question of this kind." 

We are glad our author abjures " conjecture" as a "foun- 
dation." He may yet see, if he does not now, that his 
whole " argument from nature" is naught but " conjecture" 
about the endless future, "or "the immortality of the wick- 
ed." In the foregoing questions he has overlooked the fact 
that men under the present administration, are in a proba- 
tionary state, where reformation is possible, and reconcilia- 
tion with the Creator may take place ; and that every living 
man has a large mixture of happiness and joy from the 
hand of God. 

We might ask him, why the owner of a fruit tree should 
not cut it down the first year it does not bear ? — why not 
the second ? why spare it another year ? Is it not the hope 
that it may yet become fruitful ? And may it not be a fact 
that when men become hopelessly fixed in sin they are " im- 
mediately expunged from being"? Can our author affirm, it 
is not so? Does he know the precise time when the trans- 
gressor arrives at such a consummation ? Does he know that 
is not " the line at which Divine" justice "arrests that- 
guilty" and incorrigible sinner, and " expunges from be- 
ing" ? Let him remember his own words, that " mere con- 
jecture is a poor foundation for an assumption on a ques- 
tion of this kind." He goes on — 

'•'If the reasons for expunging a guilty soul from being are not 
valid for the present moment, but are counterbalanced by other con- 
siderations of general interests and exegencies of the Divine govern- 
ment, who can affirm they shall not be overridden by such exegencies 
and interests, for ever," 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



43 



As is usual with the advocates of endless sin and suffering, 
our author has assumed that the "guilty" are not now " ex- 
punged from being" because the general interests" &c, forbid 
it and hence may forbid it "for ever:'' If so, how does he 
know but that the same " general interests," &c. will require 
the " guilty" to continue in a state where there is kope as 
there is now ? and that some will be reformed ? — perhaps all 
of them ? Such is the " Divine government" at u the present 
moment." How can he " affirm" it shall not be so "for 
ever," if the wicked are to live hereafter for ever ? Then 
what becomes of his imaginary t; immortal sorrow" and 
u eternal pain P" 

Our author adds — "This moment, as much as millions of years - 
hence, is part of the infinite government of one and the same God." 

Then is it not a legitimate conclusion that probation is 
eternal ? and that there is hope in the case of the worst sin- 
ners unless death — actual extinction of being — interposes ? 
Our author probably sings with the poet — 

" And while the lamp holds out to burn 
The vilest sinner may return." 

What then shall hinder the most hardened sinner, with the 
life of eternity before him, from becoming reconciled to God? 
Many of that class do turn to God noiv ; and "millions of 
years hence, is part of the infinite government of one and the 
same God" as " this present moment." 

Our author felt this difficulty pressing upon him, and makes 
an attempt to escape it. He says — 

"We do not assume that the present always shall be; but that 
the actually existent has such presumption in its favor, that the 
burthen of proof is thrown upon him who affirms there is to be a 
change." 

This is truly an easy way to escape a dilemma. If an 
endless future is to be the -portion of all men, then there 
will " be a change" from the present ; for death — cessation 
from life — does now take place. If death does not take 
place in the future, there is most certainly a change, and a 



44 



IMMORTALITY ' 



very important one. If there is no change, sinners may be 
converted and reconciled to God there ; and the unreconciled 
will have many mercies and blessings, which will make life 
to them desirable ; for it is so " this moment," here ! We 
rather think our author will find u the burthen of proof' be- 
longs to his side of the question ; and we do not wonder he 
is loth to " assume that the present always shall be"; but 
until he assumes it or proves it all his " possibilities, con- 
jectures and hypotheses," built on the " Divine govern- 
ment," cannot avail the cause of endless sin and pain. 

Our author next gives us another list of " possible and 
adequate uses in the eternal duration of the wicked," in 
which he travels over substantially the same ground of 
" newly accruing guilt — to brace and innerve virtue newly 
born," &c, and concludes his enumeration by saying — 

" We wish it to be remembered, all through this portion of our 
argument, that we are not aiming here to bring forward positive 
proofs, from the light of nature, of the immortality of the wicked ; 
but to rebut the presumption against it, which, on the ground of na- 
tural reason and justice, dare, as it seems to us, to wrest Scripture 
from its natural interpretation," 

" Positive proofs," then, we are not to look for from our 
author; he only designs to prepare the way for his " inter- 
pretation" of Scripture. When he reaches " Scripture" we 
shall see if he is ready to adhere to " its natural interpreta- 
tion." "We hope he may be, and then we shall not need a 
long contest. 

Our author admits that nature does not speak " in the 
same clear, positive terms on" the immortality of the wicked, 
" as in regard to the eternal life of the good." This admis- 
sion is something ; but take away revelation altogether and 
we would like to see something more " positive" than any- 
thing our author has yet presented, or than any heathen 
philosophers have ever found, in proof of " the eternal life of 
the good." He may yet find that nature, with all its philo- 
sophy, never gave any "positive terms" expressive of " eter- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



45 



nal life 1 ' or " immortality" to the good even ; much less for 
the wicked. 

Our author adds — " Over this question, apart from revelation, na- 
ture might hang in awful doubt and fear. But manifestly she is 
qualified to give to this doctrine no denial, and is certainly compe- 
tent to present insuperable difficulties to all caviling or dogmatising 
against express revelation." 

Thus our author assumes there is 11 express revelation" of 
the immortality of the wicked. We shall see if he finds it 
when he comes to Scripture. Suppose we make & parody of 
our author's last statement thus — 

" Over this question — of the utter extermination of the 
wicked — apart from revelation, nature might hang in doubt. 
But manifestly she is qualified to give to this doctrine no 
denial, and it is competent to present insuperable difficulties 
to all eaviling or dogmatizing against the express revelation 
that 'all the wicked will God destroy for, ' the wicked 
shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the 
fat of ]ambs ; they shall consume ; into smoke shall they 
consume away.' " 

But we do not intend to forestall " revelation," as our au- 
thor seems endeavoring to do ; we anxiously look to meet 
him there ; and we shall then know what is " express reve- 
lation," and which theory is " against" it, that of the exter- 
mination of the wicked, or that of their immortality in sin 
and*pain. 

In our author's remarks in reply to the suggestion that 
God's love must be unreconcilable with His view of the final 
state of the wicked, he says — 

" God's love is just. Its glory must kindle a consuming fire to- 
ward moral evil, both as in itself ineffably odious, and as the im- 
placable enemy of happiness." 

We thank our author for this concession. Let this senti- 
ment stand as a truth, and he has granted all we contend 
for. A " consuming fire," acting unrestrained and unchecked, 
must inevitably destroy that on which it acts; hence, " moral 



46 



IMMORTALITY I 



evil" must cease by the conversion or annihilation of its per- 
petrators, or u all the wicked :^ and the reasons for its anni- 
hilation are well expressed by our author — it is " in itself 
ineffably odious" to God; therefore be will send a " consum- 
ing fire" upon it : it is " the implacable enemy of happiness" 
of holy beings ; hence unholy beings must either be con- 
verted or annihilated : God will — though He is now long- 
suffering, not willing that any should perish — " kindle a 
consuming fire," and it shall be consumed. 

It is quite manifest, however, that our author did not de- 
sign that we should take his words, in the foregoing conces- 
sion, in their u natural interpretation" — as he would have us 
take " Scripture," and as he may find we shall take it — for 
ne goes on to suggest, that " many things" in nature " con- 
tradict our finite and limited conceptions of Divine benevo- 
lence." 

He says — u We should not roast men in fire, or plunge them in the 
sea, or starve, or freeze them to death, or kill them by pestilence. 
Our minds would shudder at torturing the infant and the helpless 
with the pangs of mortal disease, and wasting them with consump- 
tion, or racking them with spasm, or at the indiscriminate massacre 
of all ages, and sexes, and characters, by the million forms of death 
of which the world is full." He adds — " If God's love breaks not in 
behalf of the infant, the innocent, or the good, the power of cold, 
heat, poison, plague, fever, electricity, or gravitation, are we war- 
ranted in presuming he will intervene to arrest, in the case of the in- 
corrigibly and impenitently guilty, the natural consequences of their 
crimes — the course of endless sin and woe. upon which, by the laws 
of their moral being, their wickedness has embarked them?" 

"We answer, there is no analogy in the cases whatever. The 
evils of this world — which our author has named — are all 
natural'evils ; which are permitted in a disciplinary state; 
and, so far as we have knowledge, bear no comparison with 
the amount of individual enjoyments; and the crisis is gen- 
erally short, and ends in death; not in protracted, unutter- 
able, and hopeless ivoe. Yet, but for revelation, we could 
not decide that " God is love :" and but for revelation we 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



47 



could not tell why these natural evils are permitted. If they 
were made immortal, perpetual, and unmixed with any pleas- 
ure to the individual experiencing them, then our £ - natural 
reason" must conclude they were the infliction of a Deity 
whose nature was destitute of love, and was the most mali- 
cious and hateful being imaginable. 

As to " the natural consequence of" the " crimes" of the 
wicked, it is death. So all nature proclaims in regard to 
the laws of our physical being. Repeated and persevering 
violation of those laws bring the transgressor to premature 
death. It will be difficult for any one to show that it is not, 
the same with our moral nature. Sin repeated, and persisted 
in, brings decrease of moral sense — which in itself is an aw- 
ful penalty ; — continuing this course, the moral sense dies, 
and the subject is "past feeling" — the consummation of pen- 
alty on his moral nature. Physical death closes the scene ; 
and for all that nature reveals, the demands of justice are 
satisfied. All " conjectures" about the endless future- — with- 
out revelation to guide us — may justly be characterized " the 
wisdom of this world" which " is foolishness with God ;" for 
" the world by wisdom knew not God." We shall not there- 
fore differ with our respected author in the idea that 

"We 'are ill-qualified to affirm what may or may not "be, or to 
prescribe for revelation the destiny of a morally lost being/' 

We are willing revelation should decide that destiny ; and 
we are willing to abide by that decision- in the u natural in- 
terpretation of Scripture." Our author says — 

li If love does not interrupt moral law now — if it does not inter- 
vene to save those whom it has created and placed in their present 
sphere and circumstances for trial, from the consequences, natural 
or penal, of their crimes — if we are not at liberty to suppose it will 
interrupt law at the grave, but the crimes of this life will reach after 
retribution in the next, and claim, as the advocates of annihilation 
admit, vast ages there for atonement to justice, how can we fix the 
date beyond which Divine love shall no more lister, to Divine jus- 
tice V 



48 



IMMORTALITY. 



We confess that to those who " admit" the " claim" of 
justice will require " vast ages" in a life beyond u the 
grave" for the mere infliction of hopeless " pain," this argu- 
ment is not so easy to dispose of. We answer for our self 
alone — We do not " admit" the position. Nature reveals 
no such " retribution and before we admit another life, be- 
yond the grave, for such a purpose, we must have plain and 
positive testimony, or the assumption is to have no credit. 
Is there positive testimony that the wicked dead will be 
made alive for such a purpose ? Till this question has an 
affirmative answer we do not " admit" that " the crimes of 
this life will claim vast ages" — nor any ages at all — in an- 
other, or resurrection-/z/e, for "retribution." 11 The ivages of 
sin is death." When the contrary is proved by positive 
testimony, it will be in time for us to " admit" it; but in- 
ferences, " conjectures," and mere "hypotheses" will not 
satisfy us ; give us a " thus saith the Lord" from nature or 
revelation. Till then we meet the assumption of " vast ages" 
in another life, after death, for " retribution," with a simple 
denial. 

All our author has said — towards the close of his argu- 
ment — on the horrid sufferings and woes of this life, being 
of the same character as that we have already considered — 
which he has introduced to show that sin and woe may never 
end, because now such things are permitted— we let pass, by 
a reference to our previous response ; and by repeating, that 
there is no analogy between this and the state of sin and 
woe he is trying to make appear may be a " reality," not- 
withstanding its " loathsomeness and misery are unutterably 
repellant and horrible." 

Our author states an objection to his argument, drawn 
from present woes, to the unlimited continuance of sin and 
misery in this manner — 

" But this is only endured for a limited time, and then compensat- 
ed by the infinite good flowing from it, and to which it is a necessary 
incident.' " 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



49 



We do not assent to this statement of an objection, as a 
whole. The evils of this life — so far as thej are unavoidable 
— are overruled for " good" to those who endure them 
patiently. But shall we assume that the " infinite good" 
could not have been attained but for c< moral evil," and the 
woes and sufferings that flow from that ? Were these " a 
necessary incident" ? We make no such concession : we re- 
gard it as without foundation in truth. These evils were in- 
troduced by man's undertaking to hew out cisterns for him- 
self which can " hold no water" — and disregarding his Mak- 
er's authority, who would have led him " beside still waters, 
and into green pastures" of " infinite good" in an unruffled 
path, and crowned him with eternal life, without these evils, 
if he had harkened to the voice of God. He gave man a 
distinct warning that death would be the result of following 
his own will to the disregard of his Creator's. 

The sufferings and woes of this life are not " a necessary 
incident" to this life, as man came from the hand of his 
Creator. He permits them now as a severer discipline for 
man's waywardness; and if unavailing for man's reformation 
death puts an end to them and the subject of them. But 
our author asks — 

11 Are we sure this relation of evil as an efficient or incident of 
good, is of limited date V 1 

We reply by asking — Is our author " sure this relation of 
evil," &c, existed before man's rebellion ? Is he sure it ex- 
isted from all eternity ? If it did not, it is not " a, neces- 
sary incident" to the following of " infinite good." If it did 
thus exist always, then, does it not " necessarily" follow, 
there is something in the infinite Beino; that is evil ? Can he 
avoid this conclusion ? If it did not exist from all eternity 
past, the presumption is it will not exist to all eternity 
future, and it is for him to prove it will. 

Our author says — 11 Through our moral constitution sentence of 
doom is pronounced on each act of wrong we witness in others ; and 



50 



IMMORTALITY. 



this sentence of doom also prophecies a future existence as due to 
retribution, in case of the evil-doer escaping justice here." 

" Our moral constitution," unperverted by false teaching 
or revenge, pronounces death, without recovery, — depriva- 
tion of life, never to be restored — an ample retribution on 
the worst offender, and therefore is a 2^ r opheci/ that such is 
to be his fate : his life is forfeited and lost, neV^er to be re- 
stored. A fearful rt retribution" this, for preferring the 
" pleasures of sin for a season" to eternal life. 

f< This voice of our moral constitution," saith our author, i: is the 
voice of God the Creator, speaking through it." 

Very well : we are content to have it so, and leave it to 
the reader to determine for himself whether the voice of 
our moral constitution is found in our author's view, or that 
of his reviewer. 

Our author's remarks on " natural religion" having " ex- 
tensively embraced the doctrine of the immortality of the 
wicked," we answer by extracts from the work of Bishop 
"Whately on M Scripture Revelations concerning a Future 
State ; found in the English edition of his work, pages 16 to 
26. He says — 

" Among the heathen philosophers, Plato has been appealed to, as 
having believed in a future state of reward and punishment, on the 
ground that the passages in his works in which he inculcates the 
doctrine, are much mare numerous than those in which he expresses 
his doubt of it. I cannot undertake to say that such is not the case ; 
for this arithmetical mode (as it may be called) of ascertaining a 
writer's sentiments, by counting the passages on opposite sides, is 
one ^hich had never occurred to me ; nor do I think it is likely to 
be generally adopted. If, for instance, an author were to write ten 
volumes in defence of Christianity, and two or three times to express 
his suspicion that the whole is a tissue of fables, I believe few of his 
readers would feel any doubt as to his real sentiments. When a 
writer is at variance with himself, it is usual to judge from the na- 
ture of the subject, and the circumstances of the case, which is likely 
to be his real persuasion, and which, the one, he may think it decor- 
ous, or politically expedient, to profess. 

" Now in the present case, if the ancient writers disbelieved a fu- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



51 



ture state of reward and punishment, one can easily understand why 
they should nevertheless occasionally speak as if they did believe 
it; since the doctrine, they all agreed, was useful in keeping the 
multitude in awe. On the other hand, would they, if they did be- 
lieve in it, ever deny its truth % or rather (which is more commonly 
the case in their works) would they allude to it as a fable so noto- 
riously and completely disbelieved by all enlightened people as not 
to be worth denying, much less refuting, any more than tales of 
fairies are by modern writers % 

(t Even Aristotle has been appealed to as teaching (in the first book 
of the Mcomachean Ethics) the doctrine of a future state of enjoy- 
ment or suffering; though it is admitted by all, that, within a few 
pages, he speaks of death as the complete and final extinction of ex- 
istence, ' beyond which there is neither good nor evil to be expect- 
ed.' He does not even assert this as a thing to be proved, or which 
might be doubted ; but alludes, to it merely , as unquestioned and 
unquestionable. The other passage (in which he is supposed to 
speak of a state of consciousness after death) has been entirely mis- 
taken by those who have so understood it. He expressly speaks of 
the dead, in that very passage, as 'having no perception;' and all 
along proceeds on that supposition. 

M But many things appear good or evil to a person who has no 
perception of them at the time they exist. For example, many have 
undergone great toils for the sake of leaving behind them an illus- 
trious name, or of bequeathing a large fortune to their children : al- 
most every one dislikes the idea of having his character branded 
with infamy after his death ; or of his children coming to poverty 
or disgrace ; many are pleased with the thought of a splendid funeral 
and stately monument ; or their bones reposing beside those of their 
forefathers, or of their beloved friends : and many dread the idea of 
their bodies being disinterred and dissected, or torn by dogs. Now 
no one, I suppose, would maintain that all who partake of such 
feelings, expect that they shall be conscious, at the time, of what is 
befalling their bodies, their reputation, or their families after death; 
much less, that they expect that jtheir happiness will, at that time, be 
effected by it. In fact, such feelings as I have been speaking of, 
seem to have always prevailed, even the more strongly, in those who 
expected no future state.. 

" It is of these posthumous occurrences that Aristotle is speaking, 
in the passage in question. But he expressly says, in that very 
passage, that " it would be absurd to speak of a man's actually en- 
joying happiness after he is dead ;" evidently proceeding (as he al- 
ways does) on the supposition that the dead have ceased to exist. 



52 



IMMORTALITY 



" The ancient heathens did but conjecture, without proof, respect- 
ing a future state. And there is this remarkable circumstance to be 
noticed in addition ; that those who taught the doctrine (as the an- 
cient heathen lawgivers themselves did, from a persuasion of its im- 
portance for men's conduct,) do not seem themselves to have believed 
what they taught, but to have thought merely of the expediency of 
inculcating this belief on the vulgar. 

' £ It does not appear, however, that they had much success in im- 
pressing their doctrine on the mass of the people : for though a 
state of future rewards and punishments was commonly talked of 
among them, it seems to have been regarded as little more than an 
amusing fable. It does not appear, from the account of their own 
writers, that men's lives were ever influenced by any such belief. 
On the contrary, we find them, in speeches publicly delivered and 
now extant, ridiculing the very notion of any one's seriously be- 
lieving the doctrine. And when they found death seemingly un- 
avoidable and near at hand, as in the case of a very destructive pes- 
tilence, we are told, that those of them who had been the most de- 
vout worshippers of their gods, and had applied to them with va- 
rious superstitious ceremonies for deliverance from the plague, find- 
ing that the disease still raged, and that they had little chance of 
escaping it, at once cast off all thoughts of religion ; and, resolving 
to enjoy life while it lasted, gave a loose to all their vicious inclina- 
tions. This shows, that even those who had the firmest faith in the 
power of their gods, looked to them for temporal deliverance only, 
and for their preservation in this life, and had not only no belief, but 
no suspicion even, that these Beings had any power to reward and 
punish beyond the grave : — that there was any truth in the popular 
tales respecting a future state. 

u It may be thought, however, by some, that the wisest of the 
heathen philosophers, though they did not hold the notions of the 
vulgar as to the particulars of a future state of rewards and punish- 
ments, yet had convinced themselves (as in their writings they pro- 
fess) of the immortality of the soul. And it is true that they had, 
in a certain sense ; but in such a sense as in fact makes the doctrine 
amount to nothing at all. They imagined that the souls of men, 
and of all other animals, were not created by God, but were them- 
selves parts of the divine mind, from which they were separated, 
when united with bodies ; and to which they would return and be 
reunited, on quitting those bodies : so that the soul, according to 
this notion, was immortal both ways ; that is, not only was to have 
no end, but had no beginning • and was to return after death into 
the same condition in which it was before our birth : a state without 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



53 



any distinct personal existence, or consciousness. It was the sub- 
stance of which the soul is composed, that (according to this doctrine) 
was eternal, rather than the soul itself; which, as a distinct Being, 
was swallowed up and put an end to. Now it would be ridiculous to 
speak of any consolation, or any moral restraint, or any other effect 
whatever, springing from the belief of suck a future state as this, 
which consists in becoming, after death, the same as we were before 
birth. To all practical purposes, it is the same thing as annihila- 
tion. 

" Accordingly the Apostle Paul, when speaking to the Corinthians 
(1 Cor. xv) of some persons who denied the ' Resurrection of the 
dead, 5 (teaching, perhaps, some such doctrine as that I have just 
been speaking of,) declares, that in that case his ' preaching would 
have been vain.' To deny the ' resurrection ' is, according to him, 
to represent Christians as 1 having hope in this life only,' and those 
1 who have fallen asleep in Christ, as having perished.' (v, 18, 19.) 
As for any such future existence as the ancient philosophers de- 
scribed, he does not consider it worth a thought. 

" Such was the boasted discovery of the heathen sages ! which has 
misled many inattentive readers of their works ; who. rinding them 
often profess the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and not 
being aware what sort of immortality it was that they meant, have 
hastily concluded that they had discovered something approaching 
to the truth ; or, at least, that their doctrine was one which might 
have some practical effect on the feelings and conduct, which it is 
plain it never could. And such, very nearly, is said to be the be- 
lief entertained now by the learned among the East Indian Bramins, 
though they teach a different doctrine to the vulgar.*' 

We leave these remarks to carry their own weight, show- 
ing that " natural religion has" never " extensively embraced 
the doctrine of the immortality of the wicked," as our au- 
thor affirms. " Natural religion" rejects and abhors such 
doctrine as " a fable." Our author, then, gains nothing to 
his argument by his appeal to such a source. He now comes 
to the following conclusion— 

"Thus we have seen nature attesting most clearly and unequivo- 
cally to a future life for all. and an immortal life for the good ; and 
if not as unmistakably and irresistibly demonstrating the endless 
existence of the wicked, at least she presents no insuperable dim% 
culties and objections/ 5 



54 



IMMOE.TALTTY : 



Whether our author has " seen nature attesting," as he 
says, the reader will judge. To our mind, he has not found 
nature "attesting" to " immortal life for the good," even; 
and without "Revelation" to bring " life and immortality 
to light" nature would be no better to guide us, on this sub- 
ject, than any other ignis-fatuus. It seems to us to have 
led our author into " the gulf of night" where he went to 
" apply the ear to the infinite gloom" when he set out after 
"nature" to see if he could not "catch the accents of im- 
mortal sorrow." And strange as it may appear, in speaking 
of the " need of revelation," our author seems, unwittingly, 
to abandon nature to our side of the question and as against 
immortality. He thus speaks — 

"There was need also of revelation to counteract the terrible and 
overmastering impressions of the circumstances of death. The form 
of physical death is most appalling. 1 All we know or dream or fear 
of agony,' are, to our seeming, gathered in it. It seems like a mor- 
tal crisis in being f and the process of dissolution, its loathsomeness 
and horror, its seeming utter destruction of at least the house and 
organism of life, and then the utter disappearance of the being from 
all the ways and interests of this world — all these must have tended 
powerfully to produce, at least on the unthinking mass, the idea of 
annihilation — the reduction of the being to utter nothing." 

Just this, precisely, is all nature can teach ; not the " un- 
thinking mass" only, but the wisest philosophers, as our 
quotations from Bishop Whately abundantly show. Nature, 
without corrupting her teaching, gives no other " idea" than 
that " of annihilation" by death. Nature, so far as it 
speaks anything, speaks against life after death, for any of 
Adam's race, good or bad. If any are to be immortal, " Re- 
velation" must declare it ; and declare it, too, not by theo- 
logical inferences , but in plain, outspoken words, which all 
can understand — the unlearned as well as the learned. Where 
then is the "thus saith the Lord, all men are immortal?" 
or, " all men, bad and good, shall be immortal ?" Let our 
author give us the testimony ; and let the reader observe 
our author's argument from revelation, that he will not, be- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



55 



cause lie cannot, produce a single text from the Bible that 
affirms the immortality of the wicked in plain and unequivo- 
cal language; and that there is not one text he can produce 
which saith, "the soul is immortal ;" or that speaks of '''im- 
mortality", as ever conferred on any of Adam's race except 
those reconciled to God. We ask the reader carefully to 
observe these facts in our author's Scripture argument. 

Our author in the conclusion of his argument from nature, 
couples Moses and Solomon with the heathen Poets in their 
" fear, sympathy or despondence under the impression of" 
the " outward terrors of death." He says — ■ 

' In the poems of Homer and Hesiod. as also of Solomon and 
Moses, this feeling breaks out on us, often in strains of exquisite 
sweetness and of ineffable melancholy, the vesper dirge of humanity 
rising on the borders of eternal night." He adds, " How sad and 
despondent the strain that comes down to us from the elder world, 
even from the muse of Inspiration : — { I go whence T shall not return, 
even to the land of darkness, and the shadow of death ; a land of 
darkness, as darkness itself ; and of the shadow of death, without 
any order, and where the light is as darkness, 5 Job 10 : 21, 22." 

This, our author tells us, is " from the muse of Inspira- 
tion." To him — it seems — the inspiring Spirit gave a very 
erroneous idea of death ! That Spirit did not see " the 
soul" that leaves its " material companion," at death, and 
launches out into light / No : " inspiration" had not then, 
and never has since, given any other view of death than that 
given by " the muse of Inspiration." It taught then, and 
has taught always since, that death is " a land of darkness, 
where the light is as darkness ;" and that without a resur- 
rection from the dead there is no future life, and no hope for 
the dead. Job was aware that if he died in his si?is he 
would " not return" from death, but " remain in the tomb :" 
chapter 21 : 32. Yet, when he was inspired with confidence 
in God, and rose above his fears, he could say — " For though 
a man die he may be revived, after finishing the days of this his 
life. I would wait patiently till I come again into existence ; 



56 



IMMORTALITY : 



then slialt Thou call and I will answer Thee." So reads the 
Septuagint, Job 14: 14, 15. 

To show the need of revelation, our author gives two ex- 
tracts from "Heathen Poesy which, one would think, were 
sufficient to prove all his efforts to find help for his theory 
of immortality — from nature — is labor lost. The " Poesy" 
is as follows :— 

" The meanest herb we trample in the field, 

Or in the garden nurture, when its leaf 

In autumn dies, forebodes another Spring, 

And from brief slumber wakes to life again : 

Man wakes no more ! Man, peerless, valiant, wise, 

Once chilled by death, sleeps hopeless in the dust, 

A long, unbroken, never-ending sleep." — Moschus Epit. Bion. 

" Down through that yawning gulf, the grave, 

When life's brief fit is o'er, 
Shall sink the great, the good, the brave, 

Down to the sunless shore, 
Where, by the hush of sullen wave, 

They sleep forevermore." — Poetry of the Ancients. 



IMMORTALITY: 

REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



BY GEO. STORKS, EDITOR OF BIBLE EXAMINER, NEW YORK, 



In concluding our review of the argument from nature 
we asked the reader io " observe our author's argument from 
revelation, that he will not, because he cannot^ produce a 
single text from the Bible that affirms the immortality of the 
wicked in plain and unequivocal language and we added, 
" there is not one text he can produce which saith, 1 the soul 
is immortal or that speaks of 1 immortality' as ever con- 
ferred on any of Adam's race except those reconciled to 
God;" we desired the reader " carefully to observe these 
facts in our author's Scripture argument." 

When we penned those remarks his Scripture argument 
had not appeared ; yet we do not claim to be a prophet be- 
cause our words have been fully verified. It needed no 
spirit of prophecy to state what has proved true, now that 
his argument has appeared : it was only necessary to have 
studied the Scriptures to know that he could produce no 
such text. Not one has he favored us with of this char- 
acter. 

We had supposed, from the first sentence of his argument 
from nature, that we were to have an essay on the immor- 
tality of the soul. That sentence is as follows : — " The ar- 
gument for the immortality of the soul begins with God." 
" The necessary immortality of a created being," he declared, 
u is an absurdity." From such a starting point we thought 
we had a right to look for something more than " conjee- 



68 



IMMORTALITY I 



tures," or inferences that God had conferred immortality on 
all the race of Adam ; but if we are competent to judge in 
the case, our author has not attempted to prove that such a 
soul as he speaks of has an existence at all ; or that man 
has immortality either by creation or as a superadded gift: 
hence his argument is not only made up entirely of inferen- 
ces, but is based on an assumption that man is dual — or a 
creature of two entities, instead of being one. Taking this 
view, and pursuing this course, it is not strange that he 
should, virtually, ignore the Old Testament in his argument. 
Where else shall we go to obtain an account of man's crea- 
tion, and to learn whether he is dual, or a unit ? 

Surely it seems important that this point should be set- 
tled by Scripture authority, and not by a mere assumption 
of a companionship of the man of earth with another entity, 
or being, which our author calls " the soul and which is so 
essential to his argument that he seems to have lost sight of 
man, as man, in pursuit of an imaginary entity, to which 
the man — formed of the dust of the ground — is only " its 
material companion-" such is his language. 

In opening the argument from Scripture, our author says — 
" Our previous Article refers the whole question of man's immortali- 
ty to the will of God." 

That was just what we desired ; and in order to this 
we think it was essential to commence where revelation 
commences its history of man and the expressed will of his 
Creator concerning him. Instead of this, the thought- 
ful reader will be surprised to find that our author passes 
the whole Mosaic account with profound silence. If he was 
in earnest to " refer the whole question of man's immortal- 
ity to the will of G-od," why overlook and silently pass the 
inspired history of man's origin, and his destiny as a sinner ? 
There he would have found man was a unit by creation. He 
would also have learned " the will of God" is clearly ex- 
pressed, that sinning man shall not " live forever." Why has 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 59 



he passed all this in total silence, and thrust upon us, first, 
an argument from nature, made up of " conjectures" and 
imaginary " possibilities," to prepare the way for his con> 
struction of " revelation," when one half of revelation is en- 
tirely disregarded in his argument from Scripture ? 

If he has seen fit to disregard and utterly neglect the Mo- 
saic account of man's origin, and destiny as a sinner, and 
assume that man is dual — or that a superadded entity call- 
ed " the soul" was given as a " companion" to the man which 
the Lord God formed of the dust of the ground — we shall 
see to it that this omission and assumption does not pass 
without investigation. He might as well undertake to decide 
the meaning of a legal instrument by looking at a few ex- 
pressions in the last half, as to treat revelation in this way, 
and then affirm that certain expressions he sees fit to select, 
can have no other meaning than that he has attached to 
them. We hope not thus to deal with the testimony of the 
Most High. 

Our author in recapitulating what the aim of his argu- 
ment from nature was, says — 

" The position of this question before the tribunal of nature, throws 
the burthen of proof on the denier s of the doctrine of immortality." 
He adds — " In order to establish his thesis, it will not suffice him to 
present mere conjecture, or meet hypothesis even with counter hypo- 
thesis ; but, for a change in the economy, if not in the system of 
Divine government, from what we now behold," &c. 

We deny that nature proves immortality to any created, 
living thing. Does our author dare affirm it does ? If he 
does " the burthen of proof '" is on him. He has been care- 
ful, however, throughout his argument from nature, not to 
commit himself to the afiirmative, and wishes us, all through, 
to understand that he offers nothing as proof of the affirma- 
tive : he only deals in " possibilities," " conjectures," and 
" negatives" — a privilege he has no idea of allowing us ! 
No, we must give positive proof that his " conjectures" are 
not realities ! Yet he may deal in conjectures and possibi- 



60 



IMMORTALITY : 



lities with such an apparent assurance, and so often repeated, 
that those who are in the habit of letting others think for 
them, are ready to receive as proof positive all these sketch- 
es of the imagination ; and as undoubted truths. 

As to " a change in the economy, if not in the system of 
Divine government, from what we now behold/' it is our 
author's theory that necessitates such change — not ours — as 
we think we have abundantly shown in our previous article. 
Death — cessation of life — ends the longest chain of sinning, 
so far as nature proves anything; that is the present il sys- 
tem of Divine government." If it is not so hereafter — and 
our author affirms it is not — then it is his system that re- 
quires the change, and the tl burthen of proof" lies on him, 
not on us. 

In touching the Old Testament he says — 

" We hear it announced far back in the cider world. 1 The wicked, 
though he dies in his full strength, with his breasts full of milk and 
his bones moistened with marrow.' yet ' is reserved for the day of 
destruction, and shall be brought forth to the day of wrath/ " 

TTe regard this quotation, in its mangled and garbled 
form, as a simple perversion of Job's language. Let the 
text and its context be read together, and we think it will 
be clearly seen that J ob teaches no such doctrine as our au- 
thor's garbled quotation would indicate. J ob speaks thus — 
" Shall any teach God knowledge ? seeing He judgeth those 
that are high. One dieth in his full strength, being wholly 
at ease and quiet. His breasts are full of milk, and his bones 
moistened with marrow : another dieth in the bitterness of 
his soul, and never eateth with pleasure. They shall lio 
down alike in the dust , and the worms shall cover them." 
Surely here is nothing that looks like teaching immortality. 
Job goes on — " Behold I know your thoughts, and the devi- 
ces which ye wrongfully imagine against me ; for ye say, 
where is the house of the prince ? and where are the dwell- 
ing places of the wicked ? Have ye not asked them that go by 
the way ? and do ye not know their tokens, that the wicked 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCE.IPTURE. 



61 



is reserved to the day of destruction ? that they shall be 
brought forth to the day of wrath." Who shall be brought 
forth ? Our author says those that Job had just said u dieth," 
&c. Let us see if those are the persons spoken of. He adds 
— " "Who shall declare his way to his face ? and who shall re- 
pay him what he hath done ? Yet he shall be brought to 
the grave, and shall remain in the tomb" 

Surely this is not spoken of those whom he said, u dieth 
in full strength," or in " bitterness of soul." He is clearly 
speaking of some living wicked, who like the inhabitants of 
Sodom or the old world should be brought — after their exam- 
ple — to the day of wrath : not from death, but from their prac- 
tice of wickedness, for saith he, they " shall be brought to the 
grave, and shall remain in the tombs" Thus we see the 
discourse, when taken together, proves just the reverse of 
what our author intended by it. It does not teach that the 
wicked dead should be brought forth from the grave to the 
day of wrath but the reverse. Whatever may be the fact 
about the revival into life of the wicked dead, Job does not 
teach such revival. But we have only spoken on this text to 
show what we may expect from our author's construction of 
Scripture language. 

Our author says — " We are told " * * * " of the spirits of the 
dead that were disturbed by the unholy invocations of the children 
of evil," &c. 

Where are we " told" this ? He has given us no text, 
and in the absence of one example, we deny that we are ever 
told, any where in the Bible, of " the spirits of the dead" being 
" disturbed" from any cause, or by any means. If so,' where 
is the testimony ? Let us have it. 

With few words our author dispatches and dismisses the 
Old Testament, and says — 

il These ages of the old dispensation had but a twilight illumina- 
tion of the realm beyond the grave. But in the fulness of times, 
came to our world one mightier than death — who broke for man the 
closures of Hades -and brought to light (i. e., manifested clearly to 



62 



IMMORTAL [TY : 



man) not only life, but immortality." * * * tl He indubitably teaches 
the happy immortality of the righteous." 

Here, as is usual with the advocates of his theory, he must 
add a qualifying term to the immortality of the righteous — 
£< happy immortality." No such phraseology is found in the 
Bible. The phrase immortality, in scripture, is never ap- 
plied to any but the holy ; i. e. to God, to Christ, or the 
saints at their resurrection ; at which time they put it on. 
But our author is — and all other advocates of universal im- 
mortality for man, are — under the necessity of adding to 
the words of inspiration, " happy" 

" Everlasting punishment," says our author, — " what shall it be ? 
'What,' would not the plain unprejudiced common-sense reader ask 
— ' what shall it be but everlasting shame and sorrow V It would 
seem it could hardly suggest or admit any other than the above im- 
port, unless under the force of hermenutics that bring to the exegesis 
of it, a prejudgment, of what befits God's character, and of what 
inspiration must teach concerning the destiny of the lost." 

"We think " the plain unprejudiced common-sense reader" 
could never come to such conclusion, while the Scriptures 
plainly declare " the wages of sin is death." Death, where 
the power of God should everlastingly, or eternally, be 
withheld from a revival into life : no revocation of the sen- 
tence. That power, which alone could revive from death, 
eternally withdrawn from them : their punishment of death 
is eternal. Such we believe is " the plain common-sense" 
meaning of the phrase; and, in our judgment, nothing but a 
" prejudgment" that man is immortal — which the Scriptures 
never affirm— could "suggest or admit any other import" to the 
phrase " eternal punishment' 7 ; but more on this hereafter. 

Our author says — " The simple question before us, we premise 
here, is, What is a fair interpretation of language God 
hath spoken to man. He has spoken then, according to the laws 
of human language, and it is to be interpreted according to the laws 
of human speech." 

In these sentiments we most heartily concur; and we 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 63 

have no fears for the result if our author abides by thern , 
and we shall now claim that the Mosaic account of Man's 
creation, trial, sin, and punishment, is to be first consid- 
ered, that we may get the true idea of the Scripture use of 
language. This is just as necessary in this controversy as 
for a child to commence with the alphabet in order to learn 
to read. Here we shall be able to settle whether our author 
has not removed his cause from Bible language to that of 
mere human invention ; and introduced, without proof or au- 
thority, phrases unknown to the inspired penmen. If so, is it 
any wonder he should leave the whole Mosaic history of 
man without even a passing notice ? There is to be found 
the root of all language in this matter. Do we find, in 
that history, any testimony of the creation, or introduction 
of a distinct entity, for man, called " the soul " of which the 
man^ made of the dust, was only the " companion ?" If not, 
what right has our author to assume it — as he has done — 
and build his argument on that assumption ? 

The Mosaic account of man's origin is brief but distinct : 
it leaves us in no doubt — " The Lord God formed man of 
the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life ; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2 : 7. 

Here is no obscurity, no ambiguity ; all is plain and 
straight-forward ; nothing is left to be inferred or assumed. 
Man's origin is from the dust, by the creative power of the 
Lord God. His perfect organism is " man" — is " a soul]" 
another act of the Creator is necessary for this soul to be- 
come a living one : not another creation-— not the adding of 
another entity : no ; his Maker "breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life, and man became a living soul." He was 
previously a soul, but without life, he now became a living 
one. Such was man's origin and nature, so far as we have 
any inspired authority to guide us. In this account " God 
has spoken according to the laws of human language, and it 
is to be interpreted according to the laws of human speech": 
thus interpreted, the idea of a superadded entity called " the 



64 



IMMORTALITY : 



soul" of which the man from the dust was only the " mate- 
terial companion," vanishes into an unfounded assumption. 

TTe see also, in this account, what life is, — not " happi- 
ness" The primary use of the term life is to express the 
active or living condition of the organic substances of sensi- 
tive creatures, whose general condition is one of conscious- 
ness ; and it is not, in its strict and literal sense, applicable 
to anything else. Let this be remembered. 

To the " living soul" — or living man. his Maker spoke of 
the possibility of his loss of life. He informed him if he 
eat of a certain tree he should " surely die :V which is clearly 
an announcement of the loss of that life with which his Cre- 
ator had endowed him : and hence he would cease to be M a 
living soul and the details of the " language,'' as express- 
ed when Adam was arraigned in judgment before his Maker, 
make this certain : " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
eat bread, till thou return unto the ground : for out of it 
wast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 
return r Gen. 2: 19. Here " God has spoken according 
to the laws of human laDguage, and it is to be interpreted 
according to the laws of human speech." Then what be- 
comes of that imaginary entity which our author and his 
school call " the soul ?" Of such an entity the inspired re- 
cord gives us no account, either in the record of niams crea- 
tion, fall, or doom. AVhat right then have theologians to 
assume such an existence, and " interpret the Scriptures" 
under the controlling power of that assumption ? And here 
we retort on our author in his owm language — "Apart from" 
this assumption, " we think more than one interpretation 
of the teaching of Scripture on this theme would hardly 
have been thought of :" and that " one interpretation" would 
have been, man is a unit — death dissolves him into his orig- 
inal elements / and the man ceases to be a conscious exist- 
ence. 

But before we leave this part of the subject, we will con- 
template, briefly, the closing of Paradise. Our author tells 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 65 

us that his " previous article refers the whole question of 
man's immortality to the will of God" Does he wish to 
know what that will is, as clearly expressed as Divine or 
" human language" can do it ? Then let him come back to 
first principles : let him not flee from the -Mosaic account as 
if it were some serpent. Look it calmly in the face. Who 
that does this without a " pre-judgment" of an immortal 
soul in man, can fail to see that the perpetuity of man's life 
depended on his moral development. If he harmonized with 
his Creator, by obedience, he was to have continued access 
to the tree of life, and live forever ; if he did not harmonize 
with his Maker, but disobey, he was to die — be cut of from 
life. Thus making holiness a necessary development for con- 
tinued life ; and unholiness a sure and certain precursor of 
death, or deprivation of life. This position is clearly set 
forth in the Mosaic account, and God's will fully expressed 
in the following language — "And now," [that he hath sinned] 
" lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, 
and eat, and live forever : therefore the Loe.d God sent him 
forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he 
was taken. So He drove out the man : and He placed at 
the east of the garden of Eden cherubims and a flaming 
sivord which turned every way to keep the way of the tree 
of life." 

If " God has spoken according to the laws of human lan- 
guage, and it is to be interpreted according to the laws of 
human speech" — as our author and ourself are agreed — here 
is plain and positive testimony that a sinner shall not live 
forever, and that such is "the will of God;" and the lan- 
guage is applied to man as a unit : whatever goes to make 
up that unit is embraced in the cutting off from life. Thus, 
even if the man could be proved to be dual, nothing is ex- 
cepted from the doom of deprivation of life : all comes under 
one exclusion from living forever. Here we rest this part 
of the subject for the present, but shall have occasion, per- 
haps often, to refer to it in our review. 



66 



IMMORTALITY '. 



Our author claims that the Scriptures do teach the immortal 
existence of the wicked, by direct, deliberate, formal declarations, 
as well as by implication, in numerous passages." 

Then we hope he will give us some of these " direct, de- 
liberate," and " formal declarations ;" which as vet we have 
never seen, nor have we met the individual before, who has 
studied the subject, that has presumed to take such a posi- 
tion. Even Bishop Tillotson, in his sermons printed 1774, 
vol. 2, admits that " The immortality of the soul is rather 
supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly revealed in 
the Bible;" and Dr. Bagxal, in the Methodist Quarterly 
Eeview, of April, 1852, writing in defence of the same side 
of this question as our author, says — " In the Bible, we 
think, there is no passage winch can be strictly said to de- 
clare that all human souls are immortal ;" and he adds, 
" The only passages in the Bible which clearly teach the end- 
less existence of all human beings, are those which speak of 
the endless happiness of the righteous and the endless misery 
of the wicked jV and he concludes by saying, " The question 
is resolved into this, 1 Shall the wicked exist forever in 
misery ft " 

This is precisely the course our author now pursues ; and 
after having announced that there are " direct, deliberate," 
and " formal declarations " of " the immortal existence of 
the wicked," he relies entirely on texts that speak of their 
punishment ; and endeavors to make the vast multitude of 
texts adverse to his views of their immortality submit to his 
interpretation of a few. He says of the multitude of texts 
against him, 

'*' The words and phrases * * * " are. when applied to the soul, 
not only susceptible of a limitation and modification of import which 
may avoid such contradiction, but are actually employed in the 
familiar and constant usage of the Scriptures, in such application, 
with such limitation and modification of meaning." 

Thus our author would prepare the way for his construc- 
tion of the language of Scripture, by first leaving man, as 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



67 



man, to talk about u words and phrases when applied to the 
soul :" meaning, of course, by soul, an entity of which there 
is no account in man's creation. And furthermore, he can- 
not be ignorant that the terms on which he relies — everlast- 
ing and eternal — when applied to anything- not 'proved to be 
immortal, are " not only susceptible of a limitation and modi- 
fication of import, but are actually employed in the familiar 
and constant usage of Scripture in such application, with 
such limitation and modification of meaning." Why then is 
our author to have the exclusive benefit of limitation and 
modification in the meaning of terms ? If he could give us 
" direct, deliberate," and " formal declarations " of the im- 
mortality of the wicked, then there might be reason in his 
claim, But no such declaration has he been able to produce. 
Let the reader not forget this. The reader will also find our 
author has labored — perhaps not intentionally — to make us 
lose sight of the man by a constant use of the term " soul" 
The terms employed in relation to man's destiny he does not 
allow " to be interpreted according to the laws of human 
speech" as applicable to man, but he substitutes " soul ;" a 
thing, which he would have us think is an entity — a being — 
by itself ; which, when spoken of, changes all language — 
divine and human — into figures of speech except his favorite 
everlasting, etc. 

We come now to what he denominates " Ruling Texts" 
These he endeavors to surround with a kind of solemnity, as 
if we were not at liberty to compare them with other Scrip- 
tures, and put any construction upon them adverse to his 
declaration of their positiveness on his side of the question. 
We dissent from any idea of putting an extra solemnity upon 
one part of inspiration more than another ; all of it is too 
solemn to be trifled with, and demands our reverence— one 
part just as much as another, and no more. His first ruling 
text is Math. 25: 34-46; particularly verses 41 and 46. 
On this text he remarks— 



68 



IMMORTALITY ! 



" One would at first suppose the words of Christ in this case were 
so explicit and positive in assertion of the immortality of man — good 
or evil — that they could not be made more so; that the hermeneutics 
that could evade them would defy any grasp of human language. " ; 

Indeed ! " Man is immortal, or has an immortal soul:' 
Would not such language be " more explicit and positive in 
assertion of the immortality of man "? We judge it would 
be far " more " so ; and yet no such " language " can be found 
in the Bible ; if it could be, it would have been our author's 
" Ruling Text" Instead of that, " Tekel" is written over 
the theory of " the immortality of man," except as a bestow- 
ment by grace on the " good." 

Our author next introduces three " propositions," of which 
he says, if they " can be established, no one will dispute that 
the text asserts the immortality of the wicked." 

The following are the propositions — 

" 1st. It [the text] describes the doom of the wicked after death. 
2d. It predicates of that doom, eternal duration. 3d. That doom 
implies the continued existence of its subjects." 

His first proposition applied to Matt. 25th might be ques- 
tioned, notwithstanding he saith it " is unquestionable." 
But to shorten our review we let it pass for the present, by 
simply saying, it is quite certain, it is not " after death " to 
all the wicked, for some will be alive at the time spoken of 
who have never died. The second proposition we assent to. 
The third we deny. Under his second proposition in speak- 
ing of the adjective of time—" everlasting "—he says — 

" By its probable etymology/'' * * * it denotes the always-be- 
ing, Or EVER-BEING." 

Is there doubt as to its " etymology ?" If not, why use 
the phrase " its probable etymology ?" We can admit no 
such doubt if our author expects us to receive his construc- 
tion of the text as " explicit and positive in assertion of the 
immortality of man." That word ''probable" was an unfor- 
tunate beginning, where we were promised the "positive*"-*-- 
But we let it p iss. 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 69 



Our author says — "It is the proper adjective of eternity, so 
much so, that in common usage of the Scriptures it is applied cha- 
racteristically to God, signifying his eternity. The original Greek 
had no stronger epithet of duration." 

And yet the inspired penmen are not all satisfied with 
that simple epithet of duration when speaking of God ; for, 
saith Paul, " the King eternal, immortal" .&c. 1 Tim. 1 : 17. 
We are not left to one epithet : Paul seems to have found 
in " the original Greek" a " stronger 5 ' one to express the 
undying nature of God : quite a useless matter, truly, if our 
author's view is correct. We admit, however, that the ad- 
jective, under consideration, when applied to any being with 
no known circumstances to restrict its meaning, should have its 
full sense of unlimited duration. But when applied to crea- 
tures known to be in their constitution dying, it cannot have 
that sense without some express declaration of a change in 
their nature from mortal to immortality. Such a declara- 
tion is made concerning those in Christ ; but nothing of the 
kind is said in relation to the wicked : hence though their 
" doom is of eternal duration" there is no evidence in the ad- 
jective employed that such doom is a living existence in pain. 

Our author says — "It is true," * * * "it is sometimes attached 
to objects of measurable date." 

Very well ; but he might have said more : he might have 
said it is much more frequently 11 attached to objects of 
measurable date" than to others. But again he says — 

" Such usage belongs to rhetorical and poetic diction, or to the 
language of imagination and passion, or appears with obvious "limi- 
tations in the nature or relation of the subject to which it attaches," 
&c. 

Just such an obvious limitation is required in the text 
under consideration, if our author succeeds in demonstrating 
that the threatened punishment is pain. But he adds — 

" In this text there is " no " such limitation, unless in the nature 
of the soul, to suppose which begs the entire question, by assuming 
the very point at issue." 



70 



IMMORTALITY . 



And is not our author " assuming the very point at issue," 
viz. j of a distinct soul-entity that is immortal ? Is there 
one word said in the text, or its context, about " the soul?" 
Not a word. It speaks of men as men: men under this 
dispensation, known to be mortal, corruptible, dying — natu- 
rally tending to dissolution. If then their punishment is to 
be eternal — as we believe — it must be eternal death — cessa- 
tion from life proper. And till our author gives us some 
positive testimony that the wicked "put on immortality/' 
it is himself that " begs the entire question, by assuming the 
very point at issue." Let this fact be remembered. 

Saith our author — 11 Amid the strongest proofs that Christ here 
designed by the term 'everlasting' to convey the idea of endless 
duration, is the historic fact that the Jews, with their ideas of the 
immortality of the soul, must have so understood it." 

Now it happens that our Lord was talking to his disciples 
alone and "privately," (see chap. 24 : 3.) and he had guarded 
his disciples against the Jewish fables; first, by warning 
them to " beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees" (see chap 16 : 6, 11, 12.) The Sadducees denied 
any future life, the Pharisees held to a future life by an im- 
mortal soul, or a transmigration of their souls into other 
bodies. Our Lord condemned the doctrine of both, and 
taught his disciples a future life by a resurrection from the 
dead; and that " at the resurrection of the just'' he would 
reward the good. Whatever therefore the Jews taught or 
the Greeks, to whom our author refers, the disciples had 
been instructed to avoid and beware of such doctrine ; and 
our Lord was now addressing his disciples " privately." All 
the testimony our author has furnished from Jews and 
Greeks is ignored by our Lord's warning to his disciples to 
beware of their doctrine. Hence the following remarks by 
our author are of no force or value. He says — 

M Our Saviour, in that discourse " [Math. 25th,] '''must have heen 
understood by those who heard him," [none but the disciples did 
hear him] C{ as meaning, by the term in question, strictly everlast- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 71 



ing ; and he knew he must be so understood. Of course, usin^ it 
without limitations, he designed to be so understood • and such must 
be its meaning in the passage." 

We believe it was " understood by those who heard him," 
viz., his disciples, as meaning "strictly everlasting:" and 
so we understand it. But what has that to do in proof of 
the immortality of the wicked ? Just nothing at all, as we 
shall yet learn when we come to see what the apostles taught, 
who learned of Christ. 

Our author says the " everlasting" is "predicated of the soul and 
especially the doom of the soul after the last judgment ," &e. 

We repeat it, not a word is said about " the soul" in the 
entire discourse. Why then this perpetual employment 
of that .term ? Why not speak scripturally ? J esus saith 
nothing about gathering " the soul" or " souls" before him. 
We hope there was no design to darken this subject by put- 
ting fancied " immortal souls" in the place of men, in their 
proper personalities as men. If they stand there as men 
they are known to be mortal, corruptible, till such time as 
we are distinctly informed that they are clothed with life 
that is everlasting. That information we have in express 
words in relation to the righteous — they enter " into life 
eternal " and hence are immortal. But wicked men hear 
that awful sentence not as soul-entities but as men — mortal 
men: and hence there is no ground for an argument that 
they " put on immortality," or that their punishment, though 
eternal, is eternal pain. 

Our author goes on thus — " The mind naturally, if admitting the 
existence of the spirit after death at all, conceives of it as among 
the most enduring of things. Especially would a limited import be 
attached to an epithet describing the final doom of the soul, because 
that doom is the very uttermost syllable of its history. It covers 
the infinite future. Bearing this, the soul disappears from view for- 
ever." 

Here our author, as usual, loses sight of man, as man, and 
fixes on his imaginary soul-entity \ He has also spoken of 
" the spirit" as if it was the same thing as "the soul."— 



72 



IMMORTALITY : 



For this we are sure he has bo scripture authority. The 
scriptures never use these words interchangably, as words of 
the same import : no, not once in the Bible can he find such 
a use. Whatever these words import, in scripture use, they 
are marked as distinct in their application. Take one or 
two examples. Heb. 4 : 12, " The word of God is quick 
and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, pierc- 
ing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit^" &c. — 
The soul and spirit are not the same, then. Again, 1 Thess. 
5 : 23, " I pray G-cd your whole spirit and soul and body be 
preserved blameless," &c. A clear distinction between 
them. What right then has our author to use these terms 
as synonymous ? And what authority has he for using either 
of them in our Lord's description of the " doom of the 
wicked ?" Just none at all : but it is very convenient to do 
so, because the common theological notion is, that " the soul 
is immortal ;" and if man was seen standing at the judgment 
scene as man he is seen as mortal — corruptible ; and then 
his everlasting living existence will depend upon the fact 
of his putting on immortality — incorruption. To prove 
such a putting on for the wicked our author has not a soli- 
tary text in the Bible ; no, not one. Hence by substituting 
soul or spirit he saves all the difficulty of attempting to 
prove the mortal wicked put on immortality, or incorruption ; 
because his school believe " the spirit is among the most en- 
during things ;" hence, is not inferior to God in its endur- 
ing nature ! Now to arraign such a " thing," and sentence 
it to everlasting punishment, proves " immortal pain,"^?<m- 
tively ! To let man, as man, be the subject of the punish- 
ment would not answer his purpose ; because he could not 
prove man thus " enduring" without proving an entire 
change in his constitution, for which our author has no au- 
thority in the case of the wicked. 

We come now to our author's third proposition on the 
text, Math. 25 : 41-46, which is — 

" This doom implies continuance of being in its object." He adds 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 73 



" The words everlasting punishment imply this." He says, " The 
word translated punishment, kolasis, is a word denoting not the con- 
sequence, but the act of punishing." * * * £< lfc indicates not 
result so much as process." * * * il It corresponds more nearly 
to our word chastisement, and might not inaptly have been rendered 
punishing instead of punishment." * * * " Its prime etymologi- 
cal idea is that of maiming, cutting, mutilation, and the like." 

Now what does all this arguing prove ? Does it prove 
the wicked " put on immortality ?" that their " corruption 
puts on incorruption ?" If it proves anything, on our author's 
side, it proves the wicked are never to be punished — they 
are " punishz?^," but never to be punished. It is about the 
same as to say, a man is dying but he is never to die. Now 
by our author's rule of interpreting language — " according 
to the laws of human speech'' — we would not hesitate to say, 
such a construction of the words of our Lord is a simple 
u absurdity y But, taking one of the " prime etymological 
ideas" of the word kolasis, viz., u cutting ," and considering 
it with what is said of the righteous in contrast, and all is 
plain. " The righteous into life eternal ;" but the wicked 
" shall go to the eternal cutting 1 '' off from life. Such an an- 
tithesis is required by " the laws of human speech :" and 
such we doubt not is the true import of the words. 

This word, kolasis, is never used by our Lord on any 
other occasion ; and he uniformly uses other words to ex- 
press torment where torment is clearly "intended. Let the 
following examples be pondered. Luke 16 : 23, 28, " He 
lifted up his eyes, being in torments '* — Basanois. " Lest 
they also come to this place of torment''' — -Basanou. -Rev. 
9 : 5, " To them it was given that they should not kill 
them, but that they should be tormented''' — Basanisthosi 
— " five months : and their tormenf — -Basanismos — " was 
as the tormenf — Basanismos— u of a scorpion," &c. Rev. 
18: 17, " How much she hath glorified herself, and lived 
deiiciously, so much torment^— Basanismon — " and sorrow 
give her." 

It is easy to multiply texts to show that our Lord never 



74 



IMMORTALITY. 



uses the word kolasis to signify torment, but another word 
always and invariably, unless the text Math. 25 : 46 be an 
exception ; to prove it an exception our author is bound, we 
think, to prove the wicked "put on incorruption and im- 
mortality," neither of which have they up to the time of 
the judgment spoken of. 

But. our author says, "It" — kolasis — c: is the same word which 
is rendered torment in 1 John 4 : 18 ; where it is said, ' There is no 
fear in love, because fear hath torment.' This is the only other pas- 
sage exhibiting this word in the New Testament. If translated in 
this manner in the clause under inspection, ambiguity of meaning 
would have been impossible. " 

As it is translated, our author thus admits " ambiguity 
of meaning," and hence positive proof of his construction of 
it fails. But in 1 John 4 : 18, Prof. Murdoch, in his 
translation of the Syriac, renders the sentence — fl Fear exist- 
eth in peril ;" which seems to be the true idea. But again, 
as kolasis has various significations, " cutting, hindrance, 
restraint," &c, as well as "punishment," it would be no 
forced construction to read 1 John 4 : 18, " Fear is a hin- 
drance to love ;" or, "is a restraint to love." Just that 
kind of hindrance to love is the idea of eternal torments. 

Our author goes on — " We infer this doom carries the idea of 
conscious being, because of the adjunct attached to the instrument of- 
the punishment predicated, (whether in reality or figure, is immaterial.) 
That instrument or adjunct is called everlasting fire. But why ap- 
ply the epithet everlasting to the agent, unless to convey the idea 
of everlasting action 1 It certainly would seem frivolous to say the 
fire was everlasting but the torment inflicted was not so V 

Here is an acknowledgment by our author that he infers. 
And truly his inference is remarkable when we consider that 
the term everlasting was so often used anions the Jews to 
signify an "age" many of which have passed away. And in 
this text we think no violence is done to interpret the lan- 
guage of the fire of the age prepared for the devil and his 
angels. That age will be the death age of the wicked. But 
leaving the term everlasting without change in the trans- 



* 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 75 

lation, what is there strange in applying it to the fire, or 
" agent," of the sinner's punishment, supposing that punish- 
ment to be literal death ? The saints had been recovered 
from death ; and, according to our author, the wicked had 
once been recovered from it ; but now comes their final doom : 
and to show that there never would be another recovery from 
death, it is said the agent of their death is everlasting : that 
cuts off all possibility of recovery. Is it then u frivolous" to 
express the final fate of the wicked by " everlasting fire," 
which precluded a revival into life ? Must we invent, and 
add to the awful sentence, a new term — as our author has 
done — to make the doom more terrific than our Lord has 
made it ? " The torment inflicted," saith our author. Now 
the text saith not a word about torment, more or less. Tor- 
ment there may be, in being cut off from life ; but that is no 
part of the punishment ; it is an accident, or unavoidable cir- 
cumstance in taking away life, which must be done by some 
instrument or agent. The stumbling stone of our author and 
his school is in their assumption that protracted pain, or tor- 
ment, and punishment are necessarily identical. But. is this 
true ? The highest crime known to human laws is murder. 
The capital, or highest punishment is not protracted pain 
but death, or deprivation of life. That is called u capital 
punishment :" not because more pain is endured by it than 
by some other punishment ; but because life is extinct. The 
sufferings of body or mind, in this case, are no part of the 
punishment, but accidental, whether less or more. This 
penal infliction by man may not, in propriety of language, be 
called " everlasting punishment," because, our author and 
others maintain the criminal will be made alive again by his 
Creator. If the Creator dooms the wicked man to be 
cut of from life, as a final punishment, there is a propriety 
in calling it " everlasting punishment," and in representing 
its finality, and the impossibility of restoration, by the action 
of an " everlasting fire ;" which impresses on the mind the idea 
of the utter impossibility of another revival into life. 



76 , IMMORTALITY. 

These remarks may suffice to meet all our author says 
about the language of our Lord being " a mere sonorious and 
idle play upon words " — " a resort to a mere trick of language^ 
a childish illusion of the imagination," &c, if the " duration of 
the suffering'''' of the wicked is not in eternal " conscious be- 
ing." He repudiates the idea of our Lord's talking in such a 
childish and idle manner, and so do we ; and we trust we have 
shewn it is neither childish nor idle in the view we take of 
the matter. But we must say, we think our author is not 
quite clear of talking in a " childish and idle" manner in his 
closing remarks of the paragraph from which we took our last, 
extract, and to which the reader may refer if he wishes to see 
it, as we shall give it no other notice. 

Our author says — " In case of the sentence of the great day, if the 
time-term of the fire is not meant to be that of its infliction of pain, 
we can see no reason why it is introduced here." 

Perhaps our author " can see no reason" for it. What 
then? Does that prove no one else 11 can see" a " reason" 
for it ? and a good reason too ? Surely, he is not eyes for all 
others. We think a good reason is found in our previous 
remarks. It is to show that there is no deliverance — no re- 
covery into life : that the death — the cutting off from life — 
is never to be revoked. Our author next introduces a spe- 
cious fallacy. It runs thus : 

" In applying the epithet everlasting alike to the life of the right- 
eous and the punishment of the wicked, in continuous clauses, we 
cannot suppose our Lord, in pronouncing the irreversible doom, 
would palter in a double sense of the same word, making the life 
endless, but the penal suffering not so." 

In this remark there is no force or weight if our author 
had not changed the word of our Lord from punishment to 
" suffering ;" but to have kept up consistency he should also 
have changed the word life to happiness ; but for that change 
he had not yet prepared the way, and it would have been a 
bare-faced perversion of our Lord's words at this stage of the 
argument. Now we have no idea that our Lord used the 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 77 

term everlasting " in a double sense;" but we do believe his 
sentence contains a plain and true antithesis, thus — 
The righteous will go to life eternal : 
The wicked will go to the cutting off eternal. 
Here is a perfect antithesis ; and it shows that while the 
righteous go to life eternal, the wicked go to the eternal cut- 
ting off from life : the one state is just as endless as the 
other : the one class live eternally, the other is eternally 
dead, 

Our author asks — li Does it not imply something felt everlasting- 
ly?" 

We answer, unhesitatingly, no. It implies no such thing. 
He asks : 

" Should we think of saying of a man shot or beheaded, that he 
departs into everlasting punishment, even though there is no re- 
covery from it, and its effects are enduring V* 

There is no parallel in the supposed case ; and our author 
appears to have felt this fact ; else why substitute tl endur- 
ing" for everlasting ? He believes the " effects" of a man's 
being " shot or beheaded " are not m everlasting ; because he 
will live again, in his opinion. If so, there may be no real 
propriety in saying he departs into everlasting punishment. 
But suppose a man " shot or beheaded" could never, by any 
possible means, be restored to life, would not the case be al- 
tered ? and would there be any impropriety in saying, when he 
is led out for execution, he goes to everlasting punishment ? 
It is not uncommon, even now, to say, " he has gone forever 
that is, he cannot come back to life : his punishment is ever- 
lasting. 

Saith our author — "In common parlance you would no more 
speak of the punishment of the annihilated than of the uncreated." 

This sentence is a mere cavil. Whoever speaks " of the 
punishment of the annihilated" % We do not, and we know 
of none who do. The punishment is death—it is to be cut 
off from life : or, if our author would like the expression 



78 



IMMORTALITY I 



better, it is 11 annihilation" : not punishing " the annihilated"; 
but punishing the wicked by annihilation, or by annihilating 
them; so that they shall u be no more 11 , as the Psalmist 
prayed, Psa. 104 : 35, " Let the sinners be consumed out of 
the earth, and let the wicked be no more"; and in view of 
such a result the Psalmist added — " Bless thou the Lord, 
0 my soul. Praise ye the Lord." We think this inspired 
prayer will be answered; the " Praise" for its accomplish- 
ment will yet be heard from every living intelligence ; but 
our author, it seems, thinks otherwise. 

" Again," our author says, " the words ' everlasting punishment ' 
imply everlasting continuance of being, because our Saviour must 
have been conscious they conveyed that signification to those listening to 
him:' 

Here is another assumption, as we have before shown. 
None but our Saviour's disciples were " listening to him", 
when he uttered these words; and he had warned them, pre- 
viously, to " beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees :" and 
that the disciples did not receive our author's view of the 
" signification" of " the words," will appear from the fact 
that in none of their recorded discourses in the Acts, nor in 
any epistle which they wrote, do they ever speak of everlast- 
ing torments, or eternal sufferings, nor endless misery. This 
fact shows that " those listening to" our Saviour's discourse, 
Math. -24th and 25th, did not have " conveyed" to them the 
" signification" our author contends for. To say, then — as 
our author has done — that " Jesus must have intended im- 
mortal woe," by the phrase " eternal punishment," because 
some of the Jews believed in such woe, is an unfounded as- 
sumption ; for the disciples, who were the only " listeners" 
to that discourse, never give the least evidence, by anything 
they ever said or wrote, that they received such a doctrine 
from their Master's words 

" We think, then, our" author's " three propositions are" not 
proven in case of this text :" and that he hay utterly failed 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 79 



to establish the last. In concluding his argument on the 
text under consideration, he says — 

This is the most full, formal and methodic statement of the pro- 
cess and sentence of the final judgment to be found in the Scriptures, 
and taken in all its aspects, may he regarded as, not less, certainly, 
than any other, a text entitled to rule on this topic." To this we do 
not object; but he adds — " We pause here to inquire, then, whether 
the above passage, to one looking at it by itself, and bringing to its 
examination no theory to be established, and no prejudgments to be 
sustained, would not seem perfectly decisive of the whole question V 

We have italicised five words in this extract to attract the 
reader's attention to the fact, that our author asks us to do 
what the Scriptures condemn ; and such a course is a "pre- 
judgment " in itself, which is most unwarrantable. Inspired 
authority enjoins us to "search the Scriptures;" not to 
" look at " a text " by itself ;" but as Paul did, a comparing 
spiritual things with spiritual." Pursuing this course, and 
accepting the inspired Paul as our Commentator, instead of 
an wmnspired man, we learn that the punishment spoken of 
by our Lord, Math. 25, is " everlasting destruction :" see 2 
Thess. 1 : 9. The scenes described and the time of execu- 
tion are the same in both these Scriptures, as the reader will 
see be " comparing " them together. Our Lord lays the 
scene " When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and 
all the holy angels with him," and Paul lays it " When the 
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty 
angels ;" then, he tells us, certain wicked men 4 shall be 
punished with everlasting destruction," Till our author 
comes with his " prejudgment" to view this text, we shall 
say, it is " so plain and so unambiguous that there could be 
no mistaking its intent " if he and his associates had " no 
theory to be established," arising from their unscriptural 
assumption of an " immortal soul" in man. 

Our author next proceeds to the contemplation, Mark 9 : 
43, 48. " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off : it is better 
for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to 
go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched : where 



80 



IMMORTALITY 



their worm dieth not, and thi fire is not quenched." To 
this and the parallel text, Math. 18: 8, the author applies 
his " three propositions " and says — 

" First, That this passage relates to the doom of the wicked after death, 
is beyond doubt." He adds — " We know of no criticism requiring no- 
tice, that questions it. We can conceive of no other rational con- 
struction in the case. Evidently the words could have had, to the 
Jews, with their notions of a future state, no other meaning." 

We remark, in the first place, these words were not spoken to 
the " J ews " hut to the disciples alone. Please examine the 
context in both chapters. Those disciples had been taught, 
as we have seen, to " beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees" 
who "made void the counsel of God by their traditions" — 
of which, the immortality of a soul-entity was one — and the 
Saviour pronounced them, to their faces, " fools and blind:" 
Math. 23 : 19. The "notions" of these characters seem to 
be the rule by which our author would establish ail his pro- 
positions, and assume that our Lord practiced deception if 
he did not use terms in the Pharisee's sense. But our Lord 
did sometimes use phrases which they understood in their 
sense while he had a different one ; and did not undeceive 
them. While standing in the Jewish temple, he said to 
61 the Jews" — -" Destroy this temple, and in three days I will 
raise it up." John 2:19. " Then said the Jews, ' Forty 
and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear 
it up in three days ?' " Did Jesus tell them, they misunder- 
stood him ? Not at all : nor was it till after " he was risen 
from the dead " that the disciples, even, understood that " he 
spake of the temple of his body." In numerous instances he 
spake to the blind, self-willed, and proud Jews in a manner 
they did not understand ; nor did he undeceive them, for the 
obvious reason, they would not — like his disciples — ask an 
explanation. But our author assumes the position that our 
Lord's words must, on all occasions, be understood according 
to the Jewish construction of phrases. 

When our Lord said to the Scribes and Pharisees — whom 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 83 

he had called just previous " fools and blind" — " Ye ser- 
pents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damna- 
tion of hell "— " the condemnation of gehenna" — he must be 
understood, according to our author's view, as speaking of 
their " doom after death and possibly the Pharisees so 
understood him. Does it therefore follow that such was his 
meaning ? We think not ; and the context compared with 
Jer. 7th and 19th goes to prove conclusively, to our mind, 
that such was not his meaning. Our Lord tells these same 
persons, that upon them " shall come all the righteous blood 
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the 
blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between 
the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these 
things shall come upon this generation." He then makes 
his lament over Jerusalem, and adds, " Behold your house 
is left unto you desolate." He had charged these Scribes 
and Pharisees with being engaged in filling 61 up the measure 
of" their " fathers' " iniquities; and thus, that generation 
were preparing themselves for the " condemnation of gehen- 
na." Was that condemnation some u doom after death ?" 
If so, will our author give us the law threatening such a 
doom ? Paul tells us " as many as have sinned in the law 
shall be judged by the law;" Rom 2: 12. Give us the 
law, then, that doomed the Jews, for their sins, to gehenna 
"after death." We fearlessly affirm, there ivas no such 
law ever given to the Jews. The gehenna our Lord speaks 
of, Math. 23 : 33, is clearly the same spoken of Jer. 7th and 
19th. Let the reader examine those chapters, and see if it 
is not evident the judgments written in those prophecies are 
what our Lord referred to when he said, 11 How can ye escape 
the condemnation of gehenna ?" Let him remember that 
the term Gehenna is from Ge — a valley, — and Hinnom — a 
man's name. " The Valley of Hinnom." This valley in 
former times was used in the worship of Moloch; and when 
the Jews departed from God they too burned their sons and 
daughters in the fire, in that valley, to bloody Moloch : see 



82 



IMMORTALITY I 



Amos 5 : 26; and Jer. 32 : 35, where God charges the Jews 
that " they built the high places of Baal, which are in the 
valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and daugh- 
ters to pass through the fire unto Molech." For such sins 
God threatened the Jews, if they did not repent and bring 
forth fruit meet for repentance, He would visit them and 
Jerusalem, and " kindle a fire" there, " and it shall not be 
quenched : >3 Jer. 17 : 27. " Behold the days come, saith the 
Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Val- 
ley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter,'' 
&c; Jer. 7: 32-34. Again, Jer. 19th, God saith— " Be- 
cause they have forsaken me" # # * and '"'have built also 
high places to Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt 
offerings unto Baal" * * * "therefore, behold, the days come, 
saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called To- 
phet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley 
of slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah 
and Jerusalem in this 'place ; and I will cause them to fall by 
the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of them that 
seek their lives : and their carcases will I give to be meat 
for the fowls of heaven, and the beasts of the earth ; and I 
will make this city desolate," &c. Now, saith the Saviour 
to the " fools and blind,*' viz., the Scribes and Pharisees of 
his time, :i Fill ye up the measure of your fathers" * * * 
" how can ye escape the condemnation of gehenna f n that con- 
demnation of which God spake by the prophet, just con- 
sidered. Was this all to take place c; after death £" So 
our author may assume ; and so might the " hypocrites'' to 
whom our Lord spoke construe it, seeing they had become 
Paganized in their :: notions'" about souls and a future life 
by a present immortality ; and hence perverted the plainest 
texts of the Scriptures God had given them. But what right 
have we to affirm Jesus used the words in their sense, when 
their sense was a perverted one ? "Was it not their business 
to '\ search the scriptures" and get the sense from that, and 
not from their " traditions ?" Jesus was responsible only 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 83 



for his own sense in the use of words, especially when that 
sense was the true scriptural one. If the Jews had departed 
from that sense and adopted one of human invention, they 
must eat the fruit of their own corruption of the words of the 
Most High. Jesus was under no obligation to instruct them 
in other than scripture words, even though they did put a 
different construction upon such terms than that of their true 
import. It was their business to learn, bv searching the scrin- 
tures, the proper sense of these terms and phrases, and 
not follow " fools, and blind" corruptors of the words of 
truth. 

We then do not admit that the passage Mark 9 : 43, &c., 
necessarily relates to a " doom after death;" it may apply 
to such judgments as were coming on the impenitent of that 
" generation," resulting in their complete and total destruc- 
tion from life, as the fire of gehenna destroyed, consumed 
irrecoverably whatever was cast into it. But whether the 
passage relates to an infliction closing this life or to a pun- 
ishment " after death," in a revived state, it is the same 
thing as to the true import of the words — they denote death 
— utter and total destruction ; " annihilation," if our author 
prefers that term, and u could have to the" unperverted 
" Jews no other meaning." 

Look at this subject without a " prejudgment" and see if 
we are not correct. 

" Gehenna, — The Valley of Hinnom" south of Jerusa- 
lem — " once celebrated J "or the horrid worship of Moloch, and 
afterwards polluted with every species of filthy as well as the 
carcases of animals, and dead bodies of malefactors, to con- 
sume which, in order to avert the pestilence which such a 
mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were kept 
burning?'' — Gr. Lex. 

Now let us ask, for what was anything cast into this fire ? 
Was it to preserve and torment, or to destroy ? Every one 
will answer, to destroy, or annihilate it. Very well ; here 
is the figure of the "doom" of the wicked. No Jevj, without 



84 



IMMORTALITY I 



perverting its significance, could possibly understand this 
term, when employed relative to that " doom," as expressive 
of protracted torment. With the Gentiles neither our Lord 
or his apostles ever employed the term gehenna. To a Gen- 
tile its use as a figure would not be felt till it was explained. 
The Jew needed no explanation— it always expressed the 
idea of total and irrevocable destruction. With the Gentiles 
the apostles always used other terms, such as death, destroy, 
destruction, &c. 

Now we ask those who have not " prejudged " the case, if 
the fact that the figure denotes utter destruction— and the 
fact that our Lord nor his apostles ever used this form of 
speech except to the Jews, does not afford overwhelming 
evidence that he spake not of protracted conscious existence 
to those doomed to the " fire of gehenna ?" And that he 
did mean by it death, proper, and irrevocable, whether in- 
flicted at the close of this life, or at the close of a future life 
after this? "This, certainly, is the only obvious, common 
sense import of the language used," to use our author's own 
words. " Common sense" saith, " unquenchable fire" is that 
which destroys, and cannot be arrested in its work of destruc- 
tion, il Common sense" saith, the worm that dieth not will 
devour that on which it feeds. The two phrases combined — 
as in our Lord's discourse — " common sense" saith, are 
the strongest possible expressions for total destruction, or 
annihilation. And in this sense " unquenchable fire" is 
often used in the " scriptures" Jesus commanded the Jews 
to "search: 1 See Jer. 7 : 20 ; 17: 27; Ezk. 20 : 47, 48. 
Those scriptures our author seems to pass very slightly to 
look at a text " by itself we have not so learned of Christ, 
but search the Old Testament that we may understand the 
New, believing both given by the inspiration of one Spirit. 

Let us look a little more closely at Mark 9 : 43, &c, than 
our author appears to have done. What does the text say ? 
" If thy hand offend thee, cut it off : it is better for thee to 
enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 85 

hell" — gehenna — " into the fire that shall never be quenched." 
dec. 

The reader will observe the thing to be gained, by cutting 
off the hand, is life — u to enter into life". Then that which 
is the loss is life, or failing "to enter into life;" and the 
figurative agency — fire and worms — denote the sure and 
certain exclusion from life, by showing the continued " mor- 
tality and corruption" of the wicked, and hence their certain 
and irreversible destruction, as gehenna's fires devoured and 
destroyed whatever was cast therein. 

The text therefore shows that the wicked are corruptible 
and mortal when this doom is inflicted upon them ; and that 
they do not " enter into life," but die — for, " the wages of 
sin is death /" Rom. 6 : 23 ; and " The soul that sinneth it 
shall die /" Ezk. 18: 4,20. Whenever this doom occurs, 
then, it is inflicted on mortal beings ; and the agencies em- 
ployed — " whether figurative or literal" — make this certain : 
for immortality cannot suffer nor die ; such an idea has no 
harmony with divine nor human language. Suffering and 
death are connected only with mortality. To us, it seems 
truly astonishing that intelligent and thoughtful men should 
not see that immortality and suffering can no more be amal- 
gamated than fire and water : one or the other must recede 
— they cannot co-exist. This fact is so plain and self-evident 
that we shall spend no time in arguing it. 

Let the advocates of " eternal pain" prove the contrary if 
they can : they will find they have something more difficult 
to prove than a " universal negative?'' We regard the idea 
of an immortal being's suffering as a self-evident " absurdity." 
Hence to claim Mark 9 : 43, and parallel texts, as teaching- 
such doctrine is a claim showing an utter destitution of any 
" direct" and " formal declarations" of " the immortal exist- 
ence of the wicked," which our author promised to give, at. 
the outset of his Scripture Argument. We find then, " posi- 
tive reasons for interpreting" the " language" in the text 
under consideration adverse to our author's views, notwith- 



86 



IMMORTALITY I 



standing he pronounces it a " sheer assumption'- to do so. — 
If his interpretation was inspired it might be assumption to 
differ from it ; as it is, we think the " sheer assumption' 5 is 
on his side, as he has not presented the shadow of proof that 
the wicked change corruption for incorruption. and mortality 
for immortality before, at the time of, or after the judgment. 
And if he could do so — though he cannot — it would only 
demonstrate his theory, of " eternal pain,'' an " eternal ab- 
surdity,*' and an impossibility. Look where he will the 
Cherubim and flaming sword turn every way to keep the tree 
of life, lest sinning men should eat and live forever. God 
has willed they shall not 11 live forever :" " the wages of sin 
is death; 1 '' and as " no positive reasons appear for restrict- 
ing" this language, " these terms must bear their full, natu- 
ral meaning, and the doom affirmed must be eternal" death. 

But saith our author — " When our Saviour warns us against being 
cast into hell, ' where their worm dieth not and the fire is not 
quenched/ he certainly can design nothing else than to warn us of 
a doom which inflicts unquenchable and ever-gnawing pain."' 

Indeed ! Have we not shown something more than prob- 
able reasons that he meant no such thing, but just the re- 
verse ? Is our author and his school possessed of so much 
more wisdom than he who was the " icisdom of God," that 
they can express their ideas of the punishment of the wicked 
in unmistakable language, so that none doubt they mean 
"immortal sorrow" — " eternal pain" — " endless misery" — 
while the Son of God used no such language, at any time, 
to express the doom of the wicked ? Are they wiser than 
he ? Have they learned to express themselves more clearly 
than the Great Teacher ? If our Saviour meant " immor- 
tal existence in immortal woe" — as our author affirms — was 
he not just as capable of expressing himself in such unmis- 
takable language as our author is ? No one is in the least 
danger of misunderstanding our author's language ; it needs 
no long and labored argument to establish the fact that he 
means " eternal pain." 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 87 



Our author's appeal to " Judith, though" — as he saith — 
" not of inspired authority," shows his barrenness of " Scrip- 
ture argument," and proves only that men long ago, as well 
as now, made " void the .words of God through their tradi- 
tions." 

Our author says, " The fact that the language and imagery here 
used' 1 (Mark 9 : 43) "may have been derived from a prophecy of 
the Old Testament of temporal calamities merely, affects not all this*' 
(his) 11 interpretation, in the connection in which they here stand. 
They are here taken out of finite scene or date and transferred to 
eternity and the soul; and all limitary barriers fall." 

This is truly u sheer assumption" Where is our author's 
" thus saith the Lord " for it ? And here, as elsewhere, he 
obtrudes " the soul" for the man. Not one word does our 
Lord utter in the text about "the soul" or "eternity." 
Our author manifestly felt himself in an awkward position 
after this assumption, and he set himself to break the force 
of a rebut from the Old Testament ; in the first place, by in- 
sinuating that 

" It would be difficult to prove that even as used in the original 
prophecy" the words " are limited." Our author then referring to 
the prophecy, Isa. 35, of " unquenchable fire, burning pitch," &c, 
" of Idumea," asks, "But have there ever been such phenomena in 
Idumea as are described in the above prediction V 1 He adds — " And 
that which was symbolized by those phenomena, a power of deso- 
lation, is it not truly still unquenched and unquenchable 1 and who 
shall say it shall ever be extinguished'?" 

Our author — perhaps not designedly — has left out of his 
consideration an important part of that prophecy "which 
completely stultifies his conclusions. It is as follows — " It 
shall lie waste : none shall pass through it for ever and 
ever." Here is the strong " time-term" about which our 
author has said so much : and yet the period expressed by 
that " time-term" has ended ; for modern travelers not only 
"pass through" that land but describe it very minutely. 

Our author goes on — li Then even the original prophecy from which 
these images are taken, which was predicated of things that evidently 



88 



IMMORTALITY *. 



lie in time, cannot be shown to have used these epithets except as 
significant of perpetuity. Much less then can it be of force to show 
they are taken in any less than infinite import, applied to the future 
of the soul. 55 

But, we have " shown" that " for ever and ever" had a 
limitation; for men do now "pass through" Idumea. And 
we might urge that tho' the fire was unquenchable it did not 
imply an endless action on victims ; for its action related to 
men, as well as to the land ; otherwise, why not " pass 
through" it at any time ? Our author says this fire is "still 
unquenched and unquenchable." But it does not now burn 
men, for they " pass through" the land unharmed : which it 
was said they should not do " for ever and ever." 

Our author's remark about the " epithets " in the pro- 
phecy being "significant of perpetuity" indicates a doubt in 
his own mind of the correctness of his interpretation. Why 
not have said, " expressive of eternal duration" ? That 
would not have answered his purpose ; for the " victim " — 
even the land — will either be restored to fruitfulness, in the 
restitution, or be utterly destroyed in the final conflagration 
of earth. What then becomes of his eternal " agency" — 
unquenchable fire — and his " implied victim" ? Turn which 
way he will the sword of truth hews his theory in pieces. 
But the words must have an " infinite import applied to the 
future of the soul," saith our author. That is begging the 
whole question at issue. It is assuming "the soul" to be 
an immortal entity ; just the point to be proved, if it can be 
done ; not forgetting that if successful in doing that, he must 
further prove that immortality and suffering can co-exist ; 
which is denied. 

But our author gives further evidence of doubting his in- 
terpretation of prophecy ; and fearful it may be " proven " 
incorrect, and that the language is of " limited import", he 
proceeds to speak of " a plausible theory" by which he can 
convert the language into " prophetic symbols" and " types" 
of " the final catastrophe of all things." Well, suppose he 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



80 



could do this, what does he gain ? The a symbols and types," 
if they be such — which we do not admit *till he proves it by 
something more than u a plausible theory" — all terminate 
in literal destruction, when threatened judgments are the 
subjects of them. But, this resort to symbols and types 
shows the lack of those direct, deliberate and formal decla- 
rations," our author promised to give us in support of " the 
immortal existence of the wicked," and which thus far we 
have looked for in vain. 

No wonder our author should start back from his specula- 
tions on prophetic symbols and types, and disclaim using 
them 11 as an argument of independent force." The fact is, 
it has no " force " at all except in his " feeling." Types and 
symbols are not to be the sport of uninspired theorists. 
Where inspiration has given us plainly their application we 
stand on the rock : speculations are sand. Such our author's 
appear to be in this case, and nothing more. 

Our author saith — " Certainly the term unquenchable is not the one 
we should naturally select to indicate that the soul shall be burned 
up." 1 

" Certainly" the Saviour saith nothing about " the soul" 
in the text : that substitute for marCs personality is neces- 
sary for our author's theory ; without it the baldness of his 
argument would be self-evident. Man, as man, is the subject 
of the discourse : man, who cuts off a right hand, or plucks 
out a right eye, in order to preserve himself, or " to enter 
into life." Will it be said, " the soul" can thus dismember 
itself ? "Who, we ask, keeps nearest to the divine testimony, 
our author or ourself ? John the Baptist saith of Christ — 
" He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." If the 
chaff does not represent the wicked, what does it represent ? 
The prophet Malachi saith — " Behold the day of the Lord 
cometh, that shall burn as an. oven; and all the proud, yea, 
all that do wickedly, shall be stubble : and the day that 
cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it 
shall leave them neither root nor branch." 



90 



IMMORTALITY : 



Here is a " thus saith the Lord,*' that whatever consti- 
tutes the wicked, whether made up of " soul" alone — as our 
author's words would seem to affirm — or whatever enters 
into their composition, all is consumed — nothing is left. 
Such a text sweeps all our author's "plausible" theories to 
the winds. 

Our author's next effort is to get clear of Isa. 66 : 24, 
from which our Lord's words Mark 9 : 43 are clearly bor- 
rowed. He says — 

" It will not suffice to say that the process of the destruction of 
bodies by the worms must be limited ; for the scene described in 
those words of Isaiah is probably symbolical, and that the thing sym- 
bolized shall not be perpetual, is just the thing to be proved." 

Indeed! " Probably' 1 ' 1 'it is " symbolical" ! Please give 
us a " thus saith the Lord;" then conjectures will not be 
needed. Till our author " proves" his conjecture — which he 
thinks "probably" may be true — "just the thing to be 
proved " lies on his shoulders, not ours. Let him prove 
there is any symbol about the language. Till he does that 
we meet his conjecture with a simple denial. 

But, adds our author — " It remains to be proved that if of limited 
significancy applied to things in time, it must of course have the 
same restriction of literal import applied to things in eternity."' 

Let our author "prove" that this language is ever "ap- 
plied to things in eternity." That is an important point, 
which as yet he has not met. He has given us no " thus 
saith the Lord " for such an assumption : it rests on no 
higher authority than his conjecture and his " probably." 

Our author concludes his remarks on Mark 9 : 43 by a 
sort of special plea that our Lord could not be guilty of de- 
ceiving his hearers : and he introduces again the " Jews," 
and their notions, which we have fully met before, so that we 
need not to add much here. The " Jews" were not his "au- 
ditory ;" and he had sufficiently warned his disciples against 
their doctrine" ; and as our Lord was talking to plain men, 
taken from their fishing, and other honest employments, he 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



91 



would be likely to address them in plain language. He said 
nothing to them about " immortal souls," nor any other 
" souls" in this discourse; but spoke of their 'personality 
just as they appeared to themselves, as men. As such — 
whole and entire — he spoke of entering ^ into life" and of 
their whole selves perishing, if they did not put away that 
which might cause them to sin": and he spoke of that perish- 
ing as a failure " to enter into life;" and of their being cut 
off from life by such agencies as forever excluded the hope 
of a recovery from death. That such was the understand- 
ing of the apostles is manifest — as we have before stated — 
from the fact that they never employed such unscriptural 
phrases as our author and his school continually employ 
when they speak of the doom of the wicked — such as, " im- 
mortal sorro iu— eternal pain- — endless misery, or torments" 
&c. Such language is not employed by those who 11 listened " 
to the discourses of our Lord, or who like Paul was taught 
the doctrine he preached by a direct " revelation" from Jesus 
after his ascension to heaven. That such men, thus taught, 
never — no never — gave utterance to such language as mod- 
ern divines use, in speaking of the doom of the wicked, is a 
sufficient refutation of all this special pleading for " immor- 
tal sorrow — eternal pain — endless torments," &c. " Death — 
die — destroy — destroyed — destruction — burned — burned up 
— consumed — perish — utterly perish" and the like, are the 
chosen phrases of men commissioned and inspired to promul- 
gate the doctrine of Christ on this momentous subject. 
These chosen phrases, we have seen our author and his 
school attempting to convert to their theory in violation of 
" the laws of human language, interpreted according to the 
laws of human speech." Such an anomaly in interpretation 
can only be accounted for by the fact that they have started 
their investigations with the assumption of man's duality, 
one half of which is an " immortal sold:" this assumption 
is not like the " philosopher's stone" that converted every 
thing "into gold;" but it much more resembles the fabled 



92 



IMMORTALITY. 



" bohun-upas /" it poisons or destroys every truth of the 
Bible, till it has driven thoughtful men to real or supposed 
infidelity : i. e. to a rejection of the Bible itself, or a rejec- 
tion of the theological interpretations of its teachings, such 
as we have been considering; which, in the minds of these 
theologians, is "infidelity;" but in fact is only a denial of 
their infallibility. 

Our author's closing remark on Mark 9 : 43, we insert for 
future reference and a passing remark. Speaking of " ever- 
lasting flame" and " the undyiyig worm " he says — 

" We shudder to ask" * * * il how much shall God subtract from 
the years of eternal life, that he may limit the ages of immortal sor- 
row 1" 

Here, if we do not misunderstand him — and we see not 
from the connection how we can — he expressly declares the 
wicked have Ci eternal life" in contradiction to the most 
plain and positive declarations of inspiration ; for, " the wages 
of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord Kom. 6 : 23. 

As our author finds none of those " direct, deliberate, and 
formal declarations" that " teach the immortal existence of 
the wicked," which he promised us, he now takes his stand 
in a book confessed by nearly all expositors most difficult of 
explanation, because so highly figurative and symbolical. 
Here he commences with Bev. 14 : 9-11, " If any man wor- 
ship the beast" * * * "he shall be tormented" # * * "and 
the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever." 

" Here/' he says, " the only question is, Does the passage relate to 
the doom of the wicked after death ?" 

He will find, however, that is not " the only question," for 
he opens by saying — 

u First the adverb of duration applied (eis aionas aionan, unto 
eternity of eternities,) like our phrase, for ever and ever, is the 
strongest expression known to the language to convey the idea of 
absolute eternity, and must carry that meaning, if the subject and 
connection can receive it," 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 93 

Our author j it seems to us, has overthrown his own argu- 
ment, by admitting a plurality of " eternities.' 5 There are 
more eternities than one, it seems ; and the torment of the 
wicked spoken of is only " unto the eternity of eternities." 
If our author had translated the language " unto the age of 
the ages" we think he would have had the exact sense of the 
language. The torment is to precede the great age — the age 
of Messiah's reign on the earth— and extends " unto" that 
age, which is truly the age of the ages. There has been the 
Adamic age : the Patriarchal age ; the Jewish, or Mosaic 
age ; the Gospel age ; next comes the age of Messiah's per- 
sonal reign, which is " the age of the ages" — the consum- 
mation of the dispensations of God with men, so far as dis- 
tinctly revealed. It is " unto" that " age of the ages" the 
" worshippers of the beast" — living at the time that age of the 
ages is about to open— are tormented. Judgments, com- 
menced on that class of wicked men spoken of, are to precede 
that day and have no cessation or interruption : they will be 
tormented most fearfully without relief or rest " unto the 
age of the ages" — not after it. Let that fact be remembered. 

This view avoids the " absurdity" of multiplying eternity 
proper, which is " inhabited" alone by " the High and Lofty 
One." See Isaiah 57 : 15, the only place in the Bible where 
the word " eternity" occurs in our translation. 

To the question, then, "Does the text apply to the state 
of the wicked beyond the grave ?" we give an unqualified, 
no : it is this side of " the age of the ages," and only ex- 
tends " unto" it. But our author says — 

" It would seem from the nature and extent of the scene disclosed, 
that the fulfillment of these words could find no place in time, or 
the finite. Its only theater must be eternity." 

We might respond, " It would seem from the" characters 
spoken of— " worshippers of the beast" — and " the scene dis- 
closed" in the fulfillment of the threat, that " these words" 
must relate to inflictions " upon the earth" and in this life ; 
and are, therefore, not u after death" 



94 



IMMORTALITY 



The previous chapter gave us an account not only of the 
beast and his image, but the threatening of the beast, " that 
as many as would not worship the image of the beast should 
be killed;" verse 15, To counteract this, God caused an 
angel to make the terrible threatening in the text ; and its 
appropriateness to deter men from obeying the beast is ap- 
parent. 

The chapter following the text opens thus — " I saw an- 
other sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels hav- 
ing the seven last plagues; and in them is filled up the 
wrath of God." The original is u In them was completed 
the wrath of God." 

Mark well, these plagues are the last on some body; and 
they are to have a completion ; hence it is impossible that 
they can be eternal, or endless. Now observe, verses 7 and 
8, it is said, " One of the four vital beings gave unto the 
seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God," 
&c. " And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory 
of God, and from his power ; and no man was able to enter 
into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels 
were fulfilled" or completed. 

Let it be distinctly noted, these plagues are the last, 
and that they complete the wrath of God on the power to 
be visited ; and also that no man can enter into the temple 
of God till they are completed. Now what follows — If 
these plagues, or part of them, fall on the wicked spoken of 
in chap, 14: 9-11, then either no man ever can enter the 
temple of God, or the wrath spoken of will have been com- 
pleted, or finished. Now listen — " I heard a great voice out 
of the temple, saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and 
pour out the vials of the wrath of God [where?] upon the 
earth :" not in hell, nor the moon, nor any other fancy lo- 
cation. " And the first went and poured out his vial upon 
the earth" Well, what happened? "And there fell a 
noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 95 

mark of the beast, and upon them which worshiped his 

IMAGE." 

Here is the commencement of the exact fulfillment of the 
threatening in chap. 14. There we find the threatening ; 
here the wrath in a course of accomplishment, and it has not 
missed the persons threatened.. These plagues are all to 
fall on men upon the earth ; chap. 16 : 1 ; they are the "fill- 
ing up the wrath of God," and they are " the last and till 
they are filled up and completed, no man can enter the tem- 
ple of God : then what becomes of " the eternity of eterni- 
ties^ of their torment ? It has passed away, like other fan- 
cies of mere theorists. 

The judgments embraced in these seven last plagues are 
fully developed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters, 
and result in the entire destruction of " Babylon the great " 
— which seems to be only another symbol of the beast. Baby- 
lon is judged, condemned, thrown down, burned with fire, 
and to "be found no mare at all," chap. 18 : 21. The terri- 
ble torments inflicted on her, and her devotees, as set forth 
in the chapters named, is a full and perfect fulfillment of 
chap. 14 : 9 to 11; and it is seen to be " on the earth;" and 
no support or countenance is given to the assumption of end- 
less sin and suffering by it. 

As we have shown that the threatened wrath is to be 
" upon the earth," and that it must have a completion , or no 
man can ever enter the "temple in heaven" it is unneces- 
sary to spend time to prove that the term, forever and ever, 
in the text, is used, as often elsewhere, to signify no, more 
than an undefined period. We might greatly extend remarks 
on this subject ; but trust enough has been said to convince 
all candid inquirers, and more would not avail with bigots, 
and dealers in mere assumptions. 

We judge we have fully met and refuted our author's in- 
terpretation of Rev. 14:9-11. If we needed to add any- 
thing more, it would be only to show the " absurdity" of 
applying a threatening of a particular and specified class of 



96 



IMMORTALITY I 



sinners to all sinners. Our author's theory makes G-od's 
threatening against this specified class — viz., the " worshipers 
of the beast" — to amount to just this — u If any man wor- 
ship the beast I will punish him precisely as I will all other 
sinners ;" thus converting a special threat into a common 
one, which is a manifest " absurdity" 

Albert Barnes, in his analysis of Revelation, says, chap. 
1 4 : 9-12 " tells the final overthrow of all the upholders of that 
anti-christian power," viz., papacy. See his " Notes." 

Our author attempts to fix the judgments of Rev. 14:9-11 
" after death" by referring to Rev. 19: 20; with what suc- 
cess we will now see. He says — 

" It is identical with the representation of retribution unquestion- 
ably in the spiritual and coming world, found in Rev.- 19 : 20 — c And 
the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought 
miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received 
the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These 
both were cast alive into a lake of fire, burning with brimstone.' 

Now that this scene does not belong to " retribution un- 
questionably in the spiritual and coming world" our author 
might have seen by including the verse following, which was 
necessary to complete the " scene." It reads thus— 

" And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that 
sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth : 
and all the fowls were filled with their flesh" 

This does not look much like a scene " in the spiritual 
world." And then, when all the wicked are cast into the 
torments of an endless fire — as our author's theory main- 
tains — what "remnant" is there left to be u slain with the 
sword ?" and what " fowls" are there, after earth's conflagra- 
tion, to be " filled with their flesh ?" Aye ! and what 
" flesh" is there to feed on ? 

Besides all this, the scene Rev. 19 : 20 describes the fate of 
the " beast and the false prophet " and of them alone ; and has 
nothing to do with " the worshipers of the beast." The 
text saith expressly, " These both were cast," etc. ; not 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 97 



these both and their worshipers, as it should do to give any 
countenance to our author's construction of it. 

Whatever is symbolized by the beast and false prophet 
are the subjects of this " retribution," and the symbolical 
agency represents destruction, not preservation in any state. 

The action of fire invariably extinguishes life in any ob- 
ject which possessed it : though the process of extinction 
may be attended with suffering, yet its result is to destroy 
life. Hence fire, as an agent, imports no more, necessarily, 
than a total extinction of the victim. 

Our author next attempts to connect the fate of the devil, 
Bev. 20 : 10, with his argument, as proof of the same fate 
for all the wicked. To say nothing of the devil here as a 
symbol of some earthly dynasty, we meet the point, and all 
our author has said upon it, with two facts : 

First, the devil is to be destroyed. "For this purpose 
the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the 
works of the devil ;" 1 John 3 : 10. " For as much then as 
the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he 1 ' [Christ] "also 
himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death he 
might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the 
devil;" Heb. 2:14. " The Lord God said unto the ser- 
pent" # * * (is it " that old serpent " Eev. 20 ?) " I will put 
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise 
his heel;" Gen. 3: 14, 15. 

Bruising a serpent's head is to extinguish life — to utterly 
destroy him. The Son of God for this purpose was mani- 
fested to " destroy the devil," his " works," and " death," of 
which the devil " had the power." 

Here is a clean sweep; and "according to the laws of 
human language, interpreted according to the laws of human 
speech," forever settles the question of the literal destruc- 
tion of the devil and all his works ; including, of course, all 
his children. Whatever then mav be the nature or duration 

5 



98 



IMMORTALITY. 



of the torments, that precede the consummation, they cannot 
he eternal, in our author's sense of that term. 

Our second fact, in disproof of our author's interpretation 
of these texts, is found Rev. 5 : 13. £i And every creature 
which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are m them, heard 
I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto 
him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever 
and ever," 

If this language does not embrace all living intelligences 
we cannot conceive how such an idea could be expressed ; 
and " according to the laws of human language, interpreted 
according to the laws of human speech," if it does not " an- 
nihilate" the wicked, it does " annihilate" our author's entire 
theory of " immortal sorrow." and " eternal torments" of 
conscious "victims." The time shall come when every liv- 
ing intelligence shall praise God and the Lamb; and our 
author may take which " horn of the dilemma" suits him 
best — the universal conversion of the devil and his chil- 
dren, or their universal annihilation. We believe in the 
latter. But which way soever he turns, the flaming sword 
of truth hews his Dagon of " immortal sorrow and eternal 
pain" in pieces ; and we trust he may yet rejoice that he has 
been emancipated from that " gulf of night" where he went, 
at the outset of his arguments, to (t apply the ear. to the in- 
finite gloom, to see whether" he might a not perchance catch, 
coming up through its mystery and silence, the accents of 
immortal sorrow." Our brother applied his "ear" to the 
wrong place ; and no wonder misty ghosts or goblins have 
flittered before his eyes, and whispered in his ears sounds of 
" immortal sorrow and eternal pain." Men generally raise 
such ghosts as they seek after. The spirit of evil, under 
such circumstances, is ever present to suggest the most 
awful, if not blasphemous thoughts of God. In love to our 
brother, and his associates in theory, we have endeavored to 
call him away from " the gulf of night" to the clear light of 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 99 



God's plain and eternal truth, and ask him to " look up," 
and open his " ear' 5 to the song of " every creature" ascribing 
" blessing, and honor, and glory, and power" to G-od and 
the Lamb. 

.Having finished his " Ruling Texts " — three in number — 
and not having produced one plainly affirming the immor- 
tality of the wicked, our author enters on the work of a 
special plea against the plain and obvious meaning of the 
multitude of texts which speak of the reward of the right- 
eous and the punishment of the wicked. He opens this part 
of the subject as follows — 

"Now it may. in the first place, be an essential question, if there 
is a seeming discrepancy of common, obvious, and literal imports, 
which ought to yield ; passages plain, explicit, direct, positive, de- 
liberately, and solemnly declarative, or those exhibiting testimony 
indirect, incidental, allusive V' 

Our author thinks the latter ought to u yield;" and in 
this we are happy to be, for once, perfectly agreed with him. 
He goes on thus — 

" If, then, destruction,, death, perdition, are predicated of wicked 
souls, it must be such death, destruction, and perdition as can co- 
exist with everlasting punishment ; i. e. with endless, conscious 
suffering. We can understand them no otherwise than as meaning 
a spiritual ruin in immortal progress." 

Thus our author starts on his career of upturning hun- 
dreds of texts from their plain and obvious import with talk 
about " wicked souls" and " spiritual ruin in immortal pro- 
gress." To have spoken of "wicked" men would not- have 
answered his purpose — they are too material, and self-evi- 
dently mortal • their ruin, then, might have been a literal 
one, and not merely "a spiritual." We cannot forbear to 
call attention again to this fact — though we have done it be- 
fore — that he has throughout his arguments labored to keep 
a soul-entity before the reader, instead of speaking of men as 
men. He has ignored man ) as man ) throughout. By what 
authority has he done this ? "We know he has not done it 



100 



IMMORTALITY I 



by scripture authority : the Bible knows nothing and reveals 
nothing of man only as man. Such a plain statement as 
the Mosaic account of man's origin and nature, is quite too 
material for our author ; and he chooses to depart from it to 
talk about " the soul," to which the God-made man is noth- 
ing but a "material companion." He has, we repeat it, 
thoughout his arguments, ignored the Mosaic account of 
man, and substituted in its place a fancy soul-entity, which 
has no likeness nor resemblance to the Scripture man. — 
Having thus departed from the Bible man, and substi- 
tuted an imaginary being, he can give it what qualities 
and properties he pleases, and talk about its immortality, 
11 immortal sorrow," and " endless sufferings;" and all the 
plain teaching of the Bible, of the wicked maiVs DEATH-doom, 
must flee before this ghostly spectre, misnamed "the soul" 
Hear him : he says — 

' ; We contend that the wonted and normal usage of the terms" 
{death, &c.) "claimed as teaching annihilation, presents, when predi- 
cated of the soul, a widely different meaning." 

Does any one fail to see, by our author's own acknowledg- 
ment, that "death," &c, would literally mean death, if man 
was considered as man ? If the threat that wicked men 
" shall be punished withe \Qr\^tmg destruction" was " predi- 
cated " of man, as such, it would be a literal destruction. 
But as this would be fatal to our author's theory, man is 
thrust aside, and carefully hidden from sight, while another 
entity, called " the soul," is thrust into view. " Who hath 
required this at your hands" ? might be asked of our author 
with as terrible emphasis as when such language was used by 
the Lord to ancient Israel. What right has he, or any other 
man, to displace man and substitute a soul-entity ? And to 
add to this imposture, the imposing idea that this soul is im- 
mortal, stands out in the foreground — without one " thus 
saith the Lord" for it — to change hundreds of texts from their 
plain and literal sense into mere figures of speech. Such is 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 101 



♦the position of this question at the point where our author 
has arrived. 

" God hath spoken to man" said our author, and added— 
" He has spoken then, according to the laws of human lan- 
guage, and it is to be interpreted according to the laws of 
human speech." To this sentiment we responded a hearty 
approval. But now our author is about to ignore this law 
of interpretation, and drops " man " to whom " God has 
spoken," and takes " the soul." Is that man? Man is a 
soul — a a living soul " while alive, but a dead soul when 
dead. But that is not " the soul " of which our author 
speaks : no, they are as unlike as light and darkness : as un- 
like as reality and a fancy. 

The terms which our author is about to encounter — -and 
which he wishes to evade — express the idea of the literal de- 
struction of the wicked, and are used and repeated more than 
two hundred times in the Scriptures ; such as Death, Die — De- 
stroy, Destroyed, Destruction — Perish — Lose life — Burned, 
Burned up — Not be — Come to an end — Consumed — Devour- 
ed — Slain — Cut off — Blotted out — Ground to powder— Hewn 
down — Beap corruption — Torn in pieces — Booted up — Be 
as nothing and a thing of nought," &c. More than two 
hundred declarations which " God hath spoken to man", in 
plain language, which cannot be misunderstood — " according 
to the laws of human speech" — are now to be converted into 
figures by a spectre called u the soul" ! A mighty task ; 
and our author has set upon it with a zeal worthy of a cham- 
pion who seeks to defend " immortal sorrow" and endless 
suffering." Our author's first attempt is to displace life, and 
eternal life," and death, from their obvious and natural 
import " according to laws of human speech." He says — 

" The terms life and death, with their derivatives, cognates, and 
equivalents, are frequently applied by our Saviour to the spiritual 
condition of men ; and his usage of them may be regarded as the 
model of that of the New Testament generally, in which part of the 
Scriptures alone, our present argument requires us to trace their 
imports," 



102 



IMMORTALITY : 



That the Saviour sometimes used the terms life and death - 
in reference to a moral state we do not deny : all such cases 
are obvious — no other construction could rationally be put 
upon his words, and no thoughtful man would misunderstand 
the language in such instances. But that our Saviour gen- 
erally^ or very "frequently'', used such terms of the mere 
" spiritual condition of men," we do deny. The system of 
interpretation our author adopts is " foreshadowed" as fol- 
lows — 

" In some passages, the Old Testament usage might be shown 
to foreshadow that of the New, especially in the primal threat de- 
nounced against eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, 1 In the day 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die' — which, interpreted in the 
light of its fulfillment, seems to apply the term death to a change 
that should pass upon the spirit in the day of the transgression/'' 

We thank our author for condescending to glance at the 
Mosaic account of man • but where he found an entity called 
" the spirit" in that account he has not told us : and that the 
threat — " thou shalt surely die" — applied to " a change upon 
the spirit" is a most unwarrantable assumption ; and we do 
not wonder our author asserted it so cautiously : he says it 
" seems'' to do so. How does it " seem" to ? Why, saith 
he, " in the light of its fulfillment:- What is that light? 
and where is it ? There is no such light in the language 
employed in the threat : there is none in the Lord God's 
formal declaration relating to its ;c fulfillment"; but just the 
reverse — " Out of the ground wast thou taken : for dust" 
\_not " spirit"] u thou art. and unto dust shalt thou return." 
This does not look much like sustaining our author's assump- 
tion that the death threatened was " a change that should 
pass upon the spirit." Not one solitary text in the Law or 
the Prophets — i. e., in the Old Testament — can our author 
find, where the phrase " surely die" occurs, in which any 
thing other than a literal death of the man is expressed. To 
talk of its applying to " a change upon the spirit, " as distin- 
guished from the man ) or of its applying to a " spiritual" 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



103 



_death, is not to " speak according to the law and the testi- 
mony" of the Old Testament ; and " if they speak not ac- 
cording to this word, it is because there is no light in them :" 
Isa. 8 : 20. 

Our author, as usual, now casts man aside, and proceeds 
to say— 

11 Let us then examine Christ's usage of these terms applied to the 
soul, and see if they are, as thus employed by him. mere synonyms 
of existence or non-existence." 

Here our author stumbles at the very outset. Who pre- 
tends " these terms" are "mere synonyms of existence or 
non-existence" ? No one, that we are aware of. Certainly 
we do not. Does the term life, in " common and normal 
usage," applied to creatures having intelligence, signify liv- 
ing existence ? Does the term death, thus applied, signify 
the cessation of living existence ? These are the questions 
which our author was bound to answer, but which he has not 
touched ; "but with his fancy soul-entity he has introduced 
for us a fancy definition of the terms in dispute, which we 
neither allow nor accept. Henceforth he " rights as one that 
beateth the air?' 1 See 1 Corth. 9 : 26. Had he "stated the 
question truly, and in our own words, there could have been 
but one answer, and that is adverse to his theory. 

" The word life" saith our author, <: as used in the Scriptures to 
denote a benefit bestowed by Christ on believers, is never equivalent 
to mere existence. 52 

Truly ! And who ever said it was " equivalent to mere 
existence"? No one : but it is often used for a living ex- 
istence, as our author will find we shall demonstrate before 
we have done. 

"What is mere existence predicated of the soul V\ asks our au- 
thor. 

Truly. A very appropriate question about ^ the soul ^ 
But he adds — 

" Can we conceive of it separate from intellectual and moral cha- 



104 



IMMORTALITY I 



racter ana actions 1 Does it not live only in such character and 

act?" 

Then infants have no " souls '' to be conceived of : for they 
have no " character and acts" at the first dawn of life. Our 
author continues — 

" The life of the soul hereafter is its continuance as a soul in its 
normal state, in its proper, healthful action and harmonies. The 
body may exist and not live ; so may the soul. Without certain 
functional action sustained, it is a dead soul." 

" Soul, soul, soul" fills our author's vision. Well, he is 
not likely to find man; if he should, all his questions are 
answered at once. Take his last remark and put the proper 
word man where he has used soul, thus — " The life of the 
man hereafter is his continuance as a man in his normal 
state, in his proper, healthful action and harmonies." Has 
not this simple and true paraphrase stultified his whole theory 
of life ? Clearly it has. 

Such a soul as our author speaks of is unknown in 
Scripture language. The only original word in the New 
Testament translated sold is psuchee. The word occurs, in 
the history of our Lord, as given in the four gospels, about 
fifty times, not including parallels. Fifteen times it is trans- 
lated soul and nineteen times life. Coming to the texts, 
where psuchee occurs with no "pre-judgment" in the case, there 
is not one of them that could be made to harmonize with 
our author's idea of "the soul." There is scarcely an in- 
stance where the translators have used the English word soul 
for psuchee, which would not have been more expressive had 
they used life, or the personal pronouns, " 2" — " myself," 
&c. expressing the -proper personalty. Take a few examples. 
Christ saith to his disciples, Math. 26 : 38 — "My soul is 
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." Was this such a 
soul as our author speaks of? Could such a soul die ? Will 
our author say, Yes ? Then he yields the whole argument ; 
for he will not pretend Christ's soul could die such a death 
as he is contending for, viz : a moral or spiritual one. Then 



REVIEW OF TH.h AiwGUM^JNT FROM bCRIPTURE. 105 



if Christ's soul was to die, at all, it must have been a literal 
death : in other words, it was Christ, personally, who was to 
die, and who did die, as the Scriptures abundantly testify. 
The text then strictly rendered, reads—" / am exceeding 
sorrowful even unto death." 

Again, Math. 12: 18, God by the prophet, saith — "Be- 
hold my servant whom I have chosen : my beloved, in whom 
my soul is well pleased." Read this — " In whom / am well 
pleased/' and have we not the exact sense ? Luke 2 : 35 — 
Simeon said to Mary — " Yea, a sword shall pierce through 
thy own soul also :" i. e. u through you": distress and sor- 
row shall pierce thy mind, thyself. 

Take Math. 16 : 26 — which would be the most like sus- 
taining our author's view of " the soul" of any text — and 
couple it with verse 25 — from which in fact it cannot be se- 
parated — and what is the result ? Let it be remembered 
psuchee is the original word translated life twice in verse 
25, and soul twice in verse 26. Now what authority was 
there for this variation in the translation ? Just none at 
all. Even Dr. Adam Clarke, though a believer in the soul- 
entity of our author, was compelled to acknowledge there is 
no authority for such a variation, and says — " sure I am it 
means life in both verses." See his Commentary on the 
text. Read the two verses thus — " Whosoever will save his 
life" — psucheen — " shall lose it : and whosoever will lose his 
life" — psucheen — " for my sake, shall find it : for what is a 
man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his 
own life ?" — psucheen — " or what shall a man give in ex- 
change for his life ?" — psuchees. Compare this with our 
Lord's words. John 12 : 25, " He that loveth his life" — 
psucheen — "shall lose it; and he that hateth his life" — 
psucheen — " in this world, shall keep it unto life" — zoeen, 
not psucheen — " eternal." 

To seize upon a word which manifestly has no such sense 
as that our author attaches to soul, and make that the basis 
of his entire argument-— and to talk about the meaning of 



106 



IMMORTALITY I 



the terms life and death when " applied to the soul" is to 
beg the whole question at issue. Is man immortal ? can 
man die ? Can " man live again ?" Can man's life be- 
come extinct — so that as man he shall " be no more 1 -? 
Can man " live forever," or have ^endless life? These 
are the true questions at issue, and which our author has totally 
evaded. He has utterly separated or " put assunder what • 
God hath joined together." He talks of " a dead soul" 
which cannot " fly from its own dead self as from its dead 
material companion"] He has " annihilated" the Bible 
man to make place for a traditionary and imaginary being. 

Let it then be distinctly understood, that, while our au- 
thor talks about a soul-entity , we shall talk of man, as man ; 
and thus keep " to the law and the testimony." And let it 
be further understood, that the question to be considered is 
not whether the term life is sometimes used in a secondary 
and figurative sense to " mean more" than " mere existence" 
— such as happiness, or a moral condition even — all this we 
admit : but, when " life and eternal life" are held out to 
be sought after, as a matter of promise by God, through His 
Son, has it or does it include the idea of continued and un- 
ending living existence ? "We affirm it does. Our author's 
entire argument is null unless he denies it. If he denies it, 
he robs the Son of God of the honor of being — in the proper 
sense of the word — the Life- Giver. 

With these remarks we pass nearly all our author's labor 
to prove what we have never denied, viz., the use of the 
terms sometimes in a figurative or secondary sense, and 
affirm — 

That living existence, and that only, or chiefly, is meant 
by the terms " life, and eternal life'' in some yiassages of 
Scripture. If that is shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, 
then has our author "labored in vain and spent his strength 
for naught." 

First, then, let us look at the connection of one of our 
author's first and principal tests, John 5: 26 — "'As the 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



107 



Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to 
have life in himself." Is there any doubt but that life 
proper — or living existence — is what is meant in this text ? 
This is an important text as the foundation, shoving from 
whence the promised life — eternal life — is to come. 

Our author quotes verse 24 — u He that heareth my word, 
and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and 
shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death 
unto life," and says — 

u Everlasting life is here affirmed as a 'present possession of the soul 
and death is spoken of as b. past condition of souls that have begun 
to live/' He adds — " Surely that condition was not one of non-ex- 
istence, but of moral ruin. ' But the import of death, by antithesis, 
must define that of life used in immediate juxtaposition. ;; 

Here our author, as usual, substitutes "soul" for our 
Lord's " He that heareth,' 5 &c. Our Lord makes it the 
person — the man; our author makes it ; '- trie soul," u Ever- 
lasting life is a present possession of the soul,"' he says ; <: of 
souls that have begun to live." Let us here ask our author 
— Can these souls now suffer d Can they be unhappy? — 
Can they be " exceeding sorrowful ?" If so, the "possession" 
of " everlasting life" is no security for unmixed happiness : 
and what becomes of the idea of his school that "eternal 
life" means " eternal happiness /" Did our author mean to 
teach his scholars a better lesson ? We hope so. At any 
rate he has exploded that notion; for the believer has "ever- 
lasting life as a present possession ;" but he is not always 
happy : far otherwise. We thank our author for putting 
this rod of correction upon the unruly of his school : we 
hope they will not pervert the words of inspiration any 
more. 

" Everlasting life is here affirmed as a present possession" 
to him that " believeth." That in a qualified sense v:e be- 
lieve. The believer does not die, as other men die. Christ 
takes the believer's life into his own keeping. If the be- 
liever falls u asleep'— for that is all he does — his "'life is" 



108 



IMMORTALITY .' 



still " hid with Christ in God ; and when Christ our life 
shall appear, then shall" the believer " appear with him in 
glory;" Col. 3 : 3, 4. "Everlasting life" is the believer's 
"present possession;" and it is the life he now has ; which 
"whosoever will lose for" Christ's £t sake, he shall find it:" 
see Math. 16 : 25. It is the eternal perpetuation of his liv- 
ing existence ; not another and a different life from the 
present, but its restoration by resurrection, and its perma- 
nent continuance. Such a continuance in life would Adam 
have had if he had not sinned. By sin he lost the right to 
everlasting life, and was excluded from the tree of life, lest 
he should " take and eat thereof, and live for ever" 

Will our author, or some of his school, tell us if the Lord 
G-od meant by that exclusion of Adam to prevent his ever 
obtaining a " spiritual life ?" Did He mean to keep him 
from ever-becoming holy ? But this is a little digression, 
though a very natural one. 

After all, the actual " posseesion of everlasting life" is re- 
served for " the world to come." " He shall receive," saith 
our Lord, " in the ivorld to come eternal life ;" Mark 10 : 30. 
And Paul said to Timothy, " Eight the good fight of faith; 
lay hold on eternal life;" 1 Tim. 6 : 12. It was still fu- 
ture, notwithstanding Timothy's " spiritual" life. 

The believer u is passed from death unto life." "Death 
is spoken of," saith our author, "as a past condition." — 
True ; but did our author not observe that it is " condemna- 
tion" to " death," that was the " past condition ?" So it is 
evident from the text itself. Besides, our Lord taught 
Nicodemus, two chapters previously, " He that believeth on 
him [the Son of G-od] is not condemned : but he that believ- 
eth not is condemned already " &c. The believer does noiv 
pass from "condemnation" to " death unto life." The sen- 
tence of death, in his case, is revoked. He is in Christ, 
and Christ's Spirit is in him; and saith an apostle, Rom. 
8 : 11, " If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the 
dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 109 



shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that 
dwelleth in you." 

"Was Jesus spiritually dead ? Was that the death from 
which God raised His Son ? But it was the same death 
from which the same Spirit would quicken those in whom it 
dwelt. 

" 1 If one died for all then were all dead ;) 2 Corth. 5 ; 14. " Who 
imagines by this." saith our author, " is meant then were all non-ex- 
istent r 5 

Truly, who does " imagine*' it ! "We know of none ; and 
how the imagination entered our author's head to ask such 
a question we cannot tell, unless " the soul " spectre in- 
duced it. 

" If one died for all then were all" condemned to death, is 
the natural import of the apostle's words : for saith he, Rom. 
5 : 16, " the judgment was by one to condemnation;" and 
he adds, verse 17, " by one man's offence death reigned:" 
all were condemned to death, and Christ died for all, because 
all were thus condemned to death. Here we find an easy 
and scriptural solution of the text. 

We now wish to state a fact. Our Saviour gave as one 
of the evidences of his Messiahship, " To the poor the gospel 
is preached;" Luke 7 : 22 ; and Paul saith, 1 Corth. 1 : 26, 
" For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise 
men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are 
called," &c. The fact in these texts is this, " the poor" and 
the unlearned were those, chiefly, who embraced the gospel 
and were benefitted by it. Hence it is both unreasonable 
and absurd to suppose the gospel promises were in the mys- 
tical language our author's theory implies. According to 
that theory there ought to have been many wise and learned 
men to teach the poor and unlearned that the words of pro- 
mise, of " life, and eternal life," meant not what they 
seemed to import, " according to the laws of human language, 
interpreted according to the laws of human speech ;" but 
1 moral life " or u spiritual life ;" which phrases, however, 



110 



IMMORTALITY-: 



we believe never once occur in the Scriptures of truth; and 
hence are suspicious phrases, to say the least. 

Our Lord and his apostles use the phrases life, eternal life, 
m everlasting life, hundreds of times, and never once caution 
their hearers that these terms are to be understood in any 
other sense than that of a literal living existence — such an 
existence as their hearers now possessed, extended without 
being interrupted by death, as their present life is. This 
fact outweighs all the learned efforts of theologians to estab- 
lish a contrary view. 

For our author to thrust forward perpetually — as he has 
done— the idea that we maintain life includes no more than 
" mere existence," is to show he is not informed as to our 
real sentiments, or that he is unwilling to have them appear 
in his Essay. We maintain that life, and eternal life — as 
promises of the gospel — embrace a living existence as " the 
gift of God through Jesus Christ," and that living existence 
one of uninterrupted enjoyment and delight. Our author 
rejects the living existence, as a gospel blessing, and contends 
that eternal life is only " eternal bliss and excellency?'' 
Which of us most honor our Lord Jesus Christ ? and which 
speaks most " according to the laws of human language "? 
Let the reader judge. 

We now proceed directly with our evidence that a living 
" existence," and that chiefly, if not only, is meant by the 
terms live, life, and eternal life in some passages of Scrip- 
ture. Bearing in mind the one, " as the Father hath life in 
himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," 
we proceed. 

" I am he that liveth and was dead ; and behold I am 
alive forevermore :" Rev. 1 : 18. Does any one question our 
risen Lord here meant literal life and death ? 

''Because I live ye shall live also:" John 14: 19. Is 
here any room for doubt that a literal life is meant ? 

" I am the resurrection and the life : he that believeth in 
me though he were dead yet shall he liver' John ii : 25. 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. Ill 



Are not life omcI death literal here ? If not, so may not the 
" resurrection" be ; and our Lord's words were but poor 
comfort to weeping Martha whose brother was dead. 

" He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth 
his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal ;" John 
12 : 25. " Whosoever will save his life shall lose it /" and 
whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it : Math. 
16 : 25. Is there — oan there be — any doubt but literal life 
is here spoken of? Yv 7 e are sure there cannot be " accord- 
ing to the laws of human language, interpreted according to 
the laws of human speech." 

Again — " Who is made not after the law of a carnal com- 
mandment, but after the power of and endless life?* 1 # # * 
" Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost 
that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make 
intercession for them :" Heb. 7 : 16, 25. Do any doubt 
that literal life is the true, if not the only idea here ? The 
Priests under the law " were not suffered to continue by 
reason of death" verse 23 ; but Jesus was made a Priest 
u after the power of an endless life" and " ever liveth to 
make intercession for them that come to God by him." No- 
thing can be plainer. 

" For if by one man's offence death reigned by one ; much 
more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift 
of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ :" 
Rom. 5 : 17. Here the connection shows that literal death 
and life are the subjects of discourse. " Sin entered into 
the world and death by sin" * * # " death reigned from 
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after 
the similitude of Adam's transgression:" verses 12, 14. 
Here we see ivhat death was spoken of; and verse 17 re- 
peats the identical words u death reigned by one," but those 
" which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of right- 
eousness shall reign in life" — a future blessing promised, to 
be obtained only — " by one, Jesus Christ ;" and it is not a 
" moral state" that constitutes the life ; but a specified moral 



112 



IMMORTALITY I 



state is a prerequisite to attaining that life ; and hence none 
but the righteous shall possess it. 

These texts are a sample of many others in which life, or 
eternal life — meaning a living existence — is the subject of 
discourse, and the promise of the gospel. Our author's labor 
to establish a contrary view may satisfy his own mind ; but 
we are sure, in this, he 11 speaks not according to the law and 
to the testimony;" nor could he speak as he does, at all, 
with even an appearance of truth, if he had not changed 
man's personality for a soul-entity ; the existence of which 
he has assumed, and then converted " he — him — man" &c, 
—terms used by our Lord — into his ideal u soul 1 ': thus de- 
parting from Scripture language to teach the " traditions of 
men." 

Let us look at the manner in which our author has treat- 
ed our Lord's discourse on life, John 6th, 

He quotes as follows — " Labor not for the meat that perisheth. 
but for that which endureth to everlasting life ; and (verses -17. 50, 
51,) 1 He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.' — * This is the 
bread that cometh down from heaven, that whosoever eateth should 
not die.' — If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever.' Evi- 
dently the life and death here spoken of are predicted of the soul, for 
no one imagines there was a reversal of the doom of corporeal death 
to believers," saith our author. 

In the foregoing quotation the italicising is ours : first, to 
show our Lord speaks of the man, while our author says, 
"evidently" it is " the soul." Which shall we believe? 
Second, we italicised the words " whosoever eateth should," 
to call attention to the fact that our author has changed our 
Lord's words for his own ; thus marring the beauty and 
breaking the force of our Saviour's glorious assurance. The 
text reads as follows — " This is the bread that cometh down 
from heaven that a man may eat thereof and not die." We 
confess our author's quotation, using the words " whosoever 
eateth should" not die, reminded us of Eve's answer to the 
serpent — " God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall 
ye touch it lest ye die." 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



113 



Our Lord talks of " man" and calls him " he" — " any 
man." Our author says, it is u the soul"! Strange that 
our Saviour should not once have spoken of " the soul," nor 
mentioned this important fixture of our author's throughout 
this entire discourse on life, if all the time that was what he 
leant. We wonder if he meant " the soul" when he said, 
•' I will raise him up at the last day"? Just as much, we 
have no doubt, as when he said, " If any man eat of this bread, 
he shall live forever." How shall he be put in actual posses- 
sion of this everlasting life ? "I will raise him up at the 
last clay. Four times in this discourse our Lord repeats 
this promise. Did he mean " the soul," we ask again? If 
so, " the soul" must have been deadly and is not to have a re- 
surrection till " the last day." How would that tally with 
our author's theory? But, " no one imagines there was a re- 
versal of the doom of corporeal death to believers," exclaims 
our author. 

We hope " no one imagines" it; but we trust every be- 
liever in Jesus, as " the resurrection and the life," is firmly 
persuaded that the " reversal of the doom of corporeal death 
to believers" is a settled and revealed fact ; not less than 
four times expressly declared in this very chapter, by Jesus 
himself. If it is not u a reversal of the doom of corporeal 
death," will our author please tell us what death of " believ- 
ers" it is, which our Lord will raise them up from " at the 
last day"? Our Lord Jesus Christ, for believers, " hath abol- 
ished death" — " counterworked^ it, as Dr. A. Clarke ren- 
ders it : " made death ineffectual" as Macknight reads it. 
Whatever view we take it shows the great work of Jesus for 1 
his people was to reverse " the doom of corporeal death," as 
our author calls it ; another word coined to turn off the eyes 
from the great truth of literal life as the " gift of God through 
Jesus Christ." 

That our Lord was speaking of literal life and death, in 
this chapter, to our mind, is perfectly apparent. " Your 
fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, smd sue e dead ." Waa 



114 



IMMORTALITY : 



that not literal death ? Dr. Adam Clarke, on this text says, 
It was the belief of " the Jews" that their fathers who died 
in the wilderness would never have a resurrection ; i. e., were 
never to live again. " This is the bread, which cometh down 
from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die," as 
you admit your fathers did in the wilderness, who did eat the 
manna. " I am the living bread which came down from heav- 
en : if any max eat of this bread, he shall live forever.' 1 — 
" As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the 
Father : so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 
This is the living bread which came down from heaven : not 
as your fathers did eat manna and are dead : he that eateth 
of this bread shall live forever :" verses 49, 50, 57, 58. 

To argue against the literal import of the terms life, live, 
and living, because some of the connecting expressions are 
clearly figurative — and assume it is" the soul" that is spoken 
of — though not once named — seems to us like a struggle 
against life ; and looks like an attempt — not designed, of 
course— to " kill the Prince of Life." See Acts 3 : 14-15. 
Let no one suppose, from these remarks, that we oppose the 
idea of a " spiritual" life : i. e* a holy moral development 
whereby believers become "partakers of the divine nature," 
which fits them for an " endless life," and prepares them for 
the resurrection to incorruption and immortality, of which 
Paul speaks particularly, 1 Corth. 15, when the entire man 
becomes like the second Adam, " spiritual :" then, with a 
holy, moral development — obtained in this mortal state 
— the believer shall "put on incorruption and immortality," 
*and is endowed with " the power of an endless life" — made 
like unto Christ— he has a living existence, and will live for- 
ever, because Christ lives. Thus prepared, and thus endow- 
ed, the believer has "joy unspeakable and full of glory," 
without evermore being " in heaviness through manifold 
temptations," as he was in this his mortal state. Immortal- 
ity and happiness are inseparable. An immortal being can- 
not be unhappy or suffer— the thing is impossible. All suf- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 115 



fering imports decay, decrease of life : continued suffering, 
continued decrease : unarrested suffering must reach death — 
dissolution. Suffering is a struggle of life against death : 

c- - DC o 

an encroachment of death on life : it must he removed or 
death sooner or later must and will triumph — life will cease. 
To talk then of an immortal sufferer, or of " immortal sor- 
row," is to talk an immortal " absurdity" — it is a palpable 
contradiction. No problem in science or theology is plainer; 
and nothing but the unfounded and unscriptural assumption, 
of an immortal entity in man, called u the soul," could ever 
have " darkened counsel by words without knowledge" so as 
to have hidden the fact, that immortality and suffering- 
cannot co-exist. 

"Before leaving our author's remarks on the terms life, and 
eternal life, we will notice the interpretation he gives of two 
or three other texts. He says — 

" In John 17 : 1, 3, our Lord in his prayer defines eternal life thus : 
1 This is eternal life ;' What 1 Endless existence 1 Not at all. But, 
* This is eternal life, to knoio Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
whom Thou hast sent.' " Our author saith — " It is manifest that 
something widely different from -mere eternal existence is imported 
in the predicate of the above proposition: for by no relation of natu- 
ral efficiency or equivalency, can you transmute such knowledge 
into a mere endless continuancy of being." 

Our author's pressing the idea of " mere eternal exist- 
ence," and "mere endless being'' — as he has done through- 
out this argument — is unfavorable to his candor, or to his 
knowledge. Mr. Dobxey in his excellent work on " Future 
Punishment" has exposed the unjustness of our opponents' 
using such language as a representation of our views : and 
every writer, of any note, who has written on our side of the 
question, has repudiated the idea that the phrase " eternal 
life" is ever understood by us to mean " mere eternal exist- 
ence," or is ever used in that sense. Yet, still our author 
persists in its use, as if that was our idea of the phrase ! Is 
this right ? We do maintain, and demonstrate from the 



116 



DDIORTALITY. 



scriptures of truth, that a living existence is chiefly \ and 
first of all, embraced in the phrase in some passages in the 
Bible, If that is true in one passage our position is invul- 
nerable, that a " living existence," which is eternal, is a gos- 
pel benefit, or a gift bestowed alone on the righteous ; while 
it embraces also the exclusion of every possible evil, and the 
presence of every possible good that the " living creature" 
is capable of. Is that " mere eternal existence" ? as our au- 
thor seems determined to affirm we hold, notwithstanding all 
our denials. Is such a course just ? Does the truth re- 
quire such a persistence in misrepresentation ? Let the 
reader decide. 

The text John 17:3, our author has not quoted accu- 
rately, as it stands in the English translation. It reads 
" This is life eternal, that they" [viz : " all flesh," of the 
previous verse,] " might know Thee the only true God, 'and 
Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." The words — " that 
they might" — which we have italicised in the verse, our au- 
thor has dropt entirely from the text, and substituted the 
single word "to." It might have been an oversight : but 
had he left those words as they stand in the text, his con- 
struction of it would prove universal salvation, and thus ex- 
plode his whole theory. It would prove universal salva- 
tion, because our author's construction of the words would 
admit of no ellipsis ; hence consistency would require that 
the language of the previous verse should admit of none, and 
so " all flesh" must have eternal life given them. Our au- 
thor's construction is, that our Lord's language " defines 
eternal life": i. e., tells us what it is ; and it is, " that they" 

all flesh," previous verse,] *' might know Thee," &c. The 
language of the previous verse is, " Thou hast given him" 
[the Son] "power over all flesh, that he should give eternal 
life to as many as Thou hast given him." If the next verse 
" defines" what eternal life is, as our author affirms, how is 
he to escape the conclusion that " all flesh" shall possess it ? 

The fact is, it is no definition of eternal life at all ; it is a 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



117 



statement of the way in which " all flesh" must have eter- 
nal life, if they possess it ; or if they would have it given to 
them. The knowledge itself, spoken of is not the eternal 
life, but the indispensable pre-requisite in order to the Son's 
bestowing it upon them. Thus Dr. BloozTifield, in his criti- 
cal notes, edited by the late Prof. Stuap.t, says — " The 
general sense may be expressed in paraphrase as follows : 
' This is the way by which they may obtain eternal salva- 
tion, namely, to acknowledge Thee the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent [as the true Messiah].'-' 
This, we doubt not, is the true import of the words ; and it 
sweeps away our author's assumption, that it " defines eter- 
nal life." It is no such thing. It is no definition at all of 
the thing, but of the way to it. And our author's appeal 
to the words — " This is eternal life," &c, to support his 
theory, is of the same character as the appeal of the Papists 
to our Lord's words — 11 This is my body" in proof that the 
bread is the literal body of Christ. The conclusion is just 
as truthful in the one case as in the other, in our judgment. 

We shall notice but one more of our author's efforts to 
overthrow our idea of eternal life. He refers to 1 John 5 : 
12, 13, and says— 

11 We are told. l He that hath the Son hath life, but he that hath not 
the Son hath not life* who thinks of interpreting these terms as affirm- 
ative of existence or non-existence, or fails to perceive the design 
of the apostle to teach us that he that hath Christ's Spirit, alone 
hath the principal of immortal blessedness and holiness V' 

Let us examine 1 John 5 : 10-12, and see if our author has 
not laid himself open to the " solemn" and awful charge con- 
tained in verse 10. " He that believeth on the Son of God 
hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath 
made Him a liar ; because he believeth not the record that 
God gave of His Son." Here is solemnity and awfulness 
enough, if our author wants that— -as he has more than once 
intimated that he wished to fix it on our minds. God's 
record, whatever it is, is to be believed, or we make " Him a 



113 



IMMORTALITY : 



liar" To give the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the 
lie, one would think was more than enough to make a u devil 
tremble." But, John, tvhat is the record God gave of His 
Son, which if a man believe not he hath made Him a liar ? 
Tell us in plain words ; do not, 0, do not use figures of 
speech now, for we may mistake the true sense, and commit 
the awful sin you speak of. John replies — 

" And this is the record, that God hath given to us 
eternal life, and this life is in His Son : he that hath the 
Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God hath 
not life," 

We bow to " this record" — we believe it with all our heart 
■ — we have no doubt of its truth — we receive it just as it 
stands — away with all your theological daubings of the 
" record" — " let God be true," though it should prove 
Scribes, Rabbins, Doctors of Divinity, and divines of all 
sorts " liars:" better the whole should be proved liars than 
that the blessed God or His Son should be charged with 
giving & false record to " the poor," the " unlearned and ig- 
norant men." But we forbear; we feel the solemnity and 
awfulness of the subject too deeply to give full utterance to 
the feelings that come over us at seeing this plain and posi- 
tive record wrested and converted to suit the unscriptural 
and unwarrantable idea that all men have an eternal life in 
themselves : that is, have an " immortal soul, that can never 
die" literally. Without one positive testimony from Genesis 
to Revelation that any man has an ''immortal soul" or a 
u deathless spirit," it is affirmed they all have : and that as- 
sumption compels them to change the words of the solemn 
" record" to mean " immortal blessedness and holiness ;" or 
" eternal bliss and excellency," as our author calls it elsewhere. 

In Christ God hath given to us an eternal living existence ; 
which existence being unending — because the subjects are 
immortal — excludes pain and decay, and necessarily embraces 
all possible pleasure and enjoyment. lie therefore that hath 
Christ — is in him — hath life, the eternal life spoken of. God 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 119 



has made Christ the fountain, or reservoir of this life, by 
giving him " to have life in himself, as the Father hath life 
in Himself;" John 5 : 26 ; " for God giveth not the Spirit 
by measure unto him;" John 3:34; and by being " in 
Christ" believers become " partakers of the divine nature;" 
2 Pet, 1:4; thus becoming " temples of the Holy Spirit ;" 
1 Corth. 6 : 19; "and if the Spirit of Him that raised up 
Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ 
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His 
Spirit that dwelleth in you;" Bom. 8:11; "for God hath 
both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by His 
power;" 1 Corth. 6 : 14. Thus does God endow the mem- 
bers of Christ with " the power of an endless life." Character- 
istically our author concludes his remarks on life, by saying — 
" From all these examples it is evident that life exhibited in the 
Scriptures, as Christ's gift to the soul, is by no means mere exist- 
ence, though of course it necessarily implies existence," 

Three points here we will give a passing notice, First, — 
The Scriptures no where speak of Christ's giving life to the 
soul as contradistinguished from the man, or to the body 
even. And if our author has not ignored the resurrection 
of the dead, by his theory, then he certainly lost sight of it : 
for it manifestly is not of importance enough for him to give 
hardly a passing notice in all he has said on life. Second, — 
He has reiterated the phrase " mere existence ;" thus con- 
tinuing to make an untruthful impression as to our views. — 
Third, — He seems almost to grant all we contend for. The 
life given by Christ, he says — u Is by no means mere exist- 
ence, though of course it necessarily implies existence." If 
he had only said, It implies the gift of a living existence, we 
would have exclaimed — amen — we are agreed. But, alas ! 
he does not allow Christ to give " eternal life" — in a literal 
sense — even to the bodies of his saints ! No, no : those 
"material companions" of "the soul" must not be men- 
tioned as ever living again, lest Christ should be seen as giv- 
ing eternal life liter ally \m any sense to his followers 1 What 



120 



IMMORTALITY : 



spectre has scared the u resurrection of the dead" from his 
view ? Is it the fear if that should stand out, as Christ and 
his apostles made it to stand forth, our author would be seen 
to be a perverter of the truth of God, by denying that a 
" living existence," beyond the grave, is the gift of God ? — 
that life, and eternal life to these " material companions" 
is a promised benefit of Christ to the believer, when he saith, 
" I will raise him up at the last day," and " because I live 
ye shall live also ?" Did our author's soul-entity scare away 
Gabriel with " the last trump," at which, Paul informs us, 
" The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall 
be changed ?" Was he fearful the truth would out, that 
life, literal life from the dead, is a promised, gospel ben- 
efit, without which no living existence did Paul regard as 
any compensation for sufferings and deprivations here ? for, 
Paul saith — " If after the manner of men I have fought with 
beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise 
not ? let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." 1 Corth. 
15 : 52 and 32. But if our author's soul-entity theory, and 
his argument upon it, is correct, Paul need not have troubled 
himself any more about the resurrection of the dead than our 
author has ; which is just none at all. Why this studied si- 
lence ? There is too much life about the resurrection to 
have it allowed to shine prominently on his path. Ghosts 
must have darkness to be seen : and if the resurrection of 
the dead had been allowed the prominence that Christ and 
the apostles gave it, the spectre — " the soul" — our author 
has been so entranced with, would have disappeared, for it 
cannot exist in the light cf the revival of the dead " at the 
last day." That resurrection is are-living of the literal 
dead, or it is no resurrection at all ; and if made literally 
alive to die no more, then is it an " eternal life," and is " the 
gift of God, through Jesus Christ ;" for " I am the resur- 
rection and the life," saith Jesus. 

Thus, strong as the truth of God, stands the immovable 
rock that " life, and eternal life," is literal life; and 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTUR,E. 121 



that eternal life is not " predicated of the soul," as our au- 
thor assumes, but of the man. Man is the subject of re- 
demption ; whatever constitutes man : not some fancy part 
of him. It is the him, himself, that neetls redemption, and 
to whom the promise is made, and it is " In hope of eternal 
life, which God, that cannot lie, promised (prochro?idn aid- 
non) before the ages began 1 ' that Paul, and all truthfully in- 
structed Christians, labored and suffered, " if by any means," 
saith Paul, " I might attain unto the resurrection of the 
dead." See Titus 1 : 2, and Phil. 3 : 10, 11. How unlike 
our author's teaching is that of Paul. 

All pretence that the phrase " eternal life" is used by our 
Lord and his apostles, not for life proper or literal, but, to 
express the idea of " eternal bliss," or " spiritual excellency 
and blessedness," is swe'pt away when we consider, there was 
no barrenness in the original language, in which they spoke and 
wrote, of words for " bliss" — " spiritual excellency," &c, if 
that was the idea they wished to convey : and when John 
gave a statement of the ^record" or testimo-ny of God, if he 
had meant by u eternal life" — as our author assumes — " the 
principle of immortal blessedness and holiness," he could 
have expressed his meaning in as plain language as our au- 
thor has his construction of it. That he did not so express 
himself, is sufficient evidence that he did not intend it. 

Our author's fancy sketch of the state and condition of 
u the soul," which state the Scriptures denominate " death" 
— " the wages of sin" — we do not notice because it is purely 
a fancy, when applied to the future state of sinners, and 
without a solitary testimony of Scripture to sustain it. After 
he had finished this fancy sketch he says — - 

" When the Scriptures pronounce over it the hideous word ''death? 
they approach the nearest possible in mortal dialect to its fitting 
nomenclature : as God when he set forth the spectacle of physical 
death in this universe, went the farthest possible in the sign lan- 
guage of material things, to image the horror of an utter spiritual 
ruin." 

6 



122 



IMMORTALITY \ 



If the word u death" approaches " the nearest possible in 
mortal dialect to the fitting" name of the final punish- 
ment of wicked men, and was the " name" which, the Spi- 
rit of God inspired holy men to use, how happens it that our 
author can describe so much more clearly in what that punish- 
ment consists ? How happens it, that " mortal dialect" has 
become so improved that our author, can describe in detail, 
and very minutely, just what that death is, according to his 
theory ? Is the " wisdom of men" so much in advance of 
the " wisdom of God," that while the latter took the word 
u death," as that " nearest possible in mortal dialect," our 
author far exceeds in the clearness of describing the sinner's 
awful doom ? We ask the reader to examine, if convenient, 
all our author's fancy sketch of what " death" is, and see if 
it. does not put to shame every inspired writer and speaker 
in the Bible. He can describe in " thoughts that breathe and 
words that burn ;" but they are shut up to the term " death"! 
" Would God" our author had been " with the prophets," 
that the Bible might have spoken as clear as he does : then 
there could have been no mistake — no misunderstanding the 
subject ! 

However— after all this " new light" on the subject — God, 
Jesus Christ, and inspired men meant just what they said — - 
" Thou shalt surely die."— 11 Why will ye die ?"— u The soul 
that sinneth it shall die ?" — not, " is already dead," as our 
author's definition would require it to read: no — " It shall 
die." — " The wages of sin is death." — " Those mine enemies, 
which would not that I should reign over them, bring 
hither, and day them before me." But we need not multi- 
ply texts : either one we have quoted outweighs ten thou- 
sand fancy descriptions, like those our author has spread 
out for our acceptance. We reject all such, and cleave to the 
words of inspiration. 

We come now to our author's labor to dispose of the 
terms Destruction, Perdition, Destroyed, &c. With custo- 
mary sagacity, he is to speak of them when " applied to the 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 123 



soul." "Without this transformation of man ) what could he 
do ? He says of the terms — 

" It is admitted that these applied to the body indicate, if not an- 
nihilation of its particles, such change, disorganization and dissolu- 
tion as amount to a cessation of its being/"' 

Very well. Then our author is a believer in the annihila- 
tion of the body, just as we believe in the annihilation of the 
man ] whom the Lord God made. We believe that by the 
destruction of the wicked — as the threatened punishment for 
a sinful life here — ; * such a change, disorganization and disso- 
lution" takes place " as amounts to a cessation of" their 
" being." Can our author show it does not ? X o, he cannot. 
He can assume that there is an invisible entity in man whose 
" nomenclature" is " the soul !" And he can further assume 
that it is " immortal," and therefore cannot be disorganized 
so as to constitute "a cessation of its being." All these points 
he can assume, and then turn his assumptions into engines of 
war to annihilate the natural and obvious sense of the plain- 
est terms of the Bible — the God-given utterances of inspired 
men as to the destiny of men — thus departing from an im- 
portant rule he himself laid down, viz : " God hath spoken 
to man. He has spoken then, according to the laws of hu- 
man language, and it is to be interpreted according to the 
laws of human speech." To this rule we assented ; and by 
it we are willing to abide, come what may. But from it our 
author has departed, by assuming the existence of an entity 
for which he has not one plain, u thus saith the Lord ;" and 
then by assuming that said entity is immortal, and hence not 
susceptible, in fact, of cessation of being. " Man" to whom 
11 God has spoken," he will not suffer to be seen in his areu- 
ment ; the soul- entity . of his own creation, has to stand in the 
fore-front of the hotest onset, lest " life and death" should 
be understood " according to the laws of human speech," and 
thus prove the utter extinction of the wicked; for, " All the 
wicked will God destroy" Psa. 145 : 20. 



124 



IMMORTALITY. 



Our author, speaking of the modification of language " by 
the nature of the objects to which it is applied, or rather by 
our conception of the nature of the objects," says — 

c< The terms destroyed, lost, dead, perished, and the like, applied to 
the soul, while implying an import analogical in many respects to 
that of those terms predicated of the body, by no means carry an 
identity or complete similitude of import. They of necessity are 
modified in our interpretation by our previous conception of the ob- 
ject. For instance, one previously conceiving the soul as immor- 
tal would not be at all embarrassed in giving a natural and apposite 
signification to these terms applied to our spiritual nature, without 
implying at all the cessation of being." 

Here our author has made a virtual acknowledgment that 
" previously conceiving the soul as immortal" is the ground 
of his entire argument. It is that previous conception that 
makes it necessary for him, and his school, to modify or 
change the meaning of the plain and obvious sense of Scrip- 
ture terms relating to man's future reward or punishment. 
And we grant, that had he proved man's immortality — or the 
existence of such a soul as he speaks of, and its immortality 
— the necessary modification of language, he contends for 
should not be called in question. Where the known nature 
of the objects spoken of are such as makes a literal interpre- 
tation clearly an absurdity, there, any man, however ignorant, 
with plain common sense, readily perceives the language is 
to be modified so as to harmonize with the known nature of 
the object. But he has neither proved the one nor the other ; 
he has assumed it throughout ; and argued as if his assump- 
tion was not to be doubted. Until he has proved these two 
points, we say to him, as Job said to Eliphaz the Temanite 
— " How forcible are right words ! But what doth your ar- 
guing reprove ?" If such a distinct entity, as our author 
calls u the soul," does not exist — or if it exist and is not 
immortal, then what right has he to claim a modification of 
the terms Destroy, Destruction, Die, Death, and the like, 
when spoken of " man" in relation to his final destiny ? 
Just none at all : and no man, not enslaved to a theory, will 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 125 



submit his judgment to the control of such arguments. If 
any one has gone down the popular current of " previously 
conceiving the soul as immortal," of course, our author will 
most likely add impetus to their downward course. Others, 
who have their manhood and a little independence of thought 
left, will possibly see that his " Argument 1 ' is no argument, 
because his premises are not proved but assumed. All our 
author's talk, therefore, about the application of the terms 
Destruction, Perish, Destroyed, &c, to "spiritual being," 
is without force ; because he has not proved man to be such 
a being. The Mosaic account of man's origin is against his 
assumption ; and the apostle distinctly marks the unrenewed 
man as animal ; and says^ — " The natural" — psuchikos, ani- 
mal-— " man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;" 
# # # u ne ither can he know them, because they are spiritu- 
ally discerned," 1 Corth. 2: 14. Again Paul saith — " The 
first man is of the earth earthy : the second man is the Lord 
from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are 
earthy : and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are 
heavenly," 1 Corth. 15 : 47, 48. Thus Paul recognizes, and 
maintains, man, by his earthy descent from Adam, is desti- 
tute of a spiritual nature ; and that such a nature flows only 
by and through the second Adam ; and is therefore of grace, 
and conferred only on those who are united to Christ. 

In the mouth of two witnesses — Moses and Paul — our au- 
thor's notion that man is a " spiritual being" is disproved : 
and being disproved, his assumption, that the terms destruc- 
tion, &c, applied to man's final doom, are not to be under- 
stood literally, falls to the ground, and along with* it all his 
interpretation of the Scripture use of these terms, so that we 
need not to notice it particularly ; and our author admits 
that " about their meaning" — the terms destruction, &c.,— 
"applied to material objects, there is as little doubt or am- 
biguity as about death, similarly applied." As he has made 
no attempt to disprove the statements of Moses and Paul, 
of man's origin and nature, we can safely give him all the 



126 



IMMORTALITY '. 



benefit that may arise from this part of his argument in any 
mind that requires a reason for a demand upon its belief. 

We will give a little attention, however, to a sample of 
our author's argument on 2 Thess. 1:9. where Paul, speak- 
ing of the doom of wicked men, says — '* Who shall be pun- 
ished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord," &c. Our author maintains this destruction is " a 
ruin in eternal progress, or one in which the soul is eternally 
involved." He says — 

" Let us hot, with imagination led on by physical analogy, con- 
ceive of a spirit being destroyed, as a body would be destroyed, by 
a power tearing it to pieces, and producing dismemberment and dis- 
solution; whereby the thing subjected to this violence loses its form 
and identity, and as an organized existence, ceases to be. We are 
now dealing with an object of a different nature ; that which thinks, 
reasons, feels, believes ; and the destruction threatened must be in its 
proper realm of being, and amid, the faculties and functions proper and 
vital to it, i. e., must be in the regions of thought, reason, conscience, 
emotion, will." 

"Who and what is it, that "thinks, reasons, feels and be- 
lieves "? Is it not man ? No : saith our author, " we are 
dealing with an object of a different nature." We say, our 
author saith " no " to our inquiry, because, he ignores the 
idea that we are to a conceive of a spirit being destroyed, as 
a body would be destroyed." Has he not then excluded 
man — as created by his God — -to introduce another " object 
of a different nature "? Clearly he has ; for man was form- 
ed a " body " and made a living creature by the breath of 
life. Man is the object of the threatened destruction, 2 
Thess. 1 : 9, and not " an object of a different nature," which 
fancy has created. Paul speaks of men, not of spirits : it is 
" them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of 
our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction." It is the men who are to be destroy- 
ed ; and whatever else is, or is not included, their bodies 
most assuredly are not left out of the destruction Paul speaks 
of, though our author may be so lost in the contemplation 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



127 



of a spectre as to be blinded to the fact. It is man that 
" thinks. 5 ' It is man that lives. It is man that dies, npt 
" a body" only; but " Man dieth ) and wasteth away." * * # 
Man li^th down and riseth not till the heavens be no more ; 
they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep." * # * 
"If a man die shall he live again?" Job 14: 10-14. It 
is man — and not " an object of a different nature" — that the 
Lord God made, and to whom both the promises and threat- 
enings of the Bible apply. Man's "body" is included in 
the threatened punishment of destruction or the man is not 
there. And if man's body is " destroyed by a power tearing 
it to pieces," or burning it up " with flaming fire," then one 
part of man is " annihilated," our author being witness, and 
that literally. The thinker is annihilated by the destruc- 
tion Paul speaks of ; and our author is left to find thought 
— as a livino; intelligence — if he can — when the thinker is 
destroyed. 

Our author's theory is, in plain English, this — The sin- 
ner's present state is a moral ruin of his spiritual nature ; 
and heis to be punished hereafter with moral ruin. But a 
state of moral ruin is reached in this life in which the sinner 
is "past feeling;" (see Eph. 4: 19,) then how will our au- 
thor prove he may not be " past feeling" hereafter ? Then 
what becomes of his notion of punishment? Again, his 
theory of the death of the soul, in the present life, is that of 
a moral disorganization of its proper faculties : the punish- 
ment hereafter is the same. Hence, according to his view, 
the sin and the punishment is one and the same thing. His 
theory is — That destruction is the punishment of the morally 
ruined ; and that punishment is moral ruin !. That is — The 
destruction consists in eternal sin and wickedness inflicted 
for being a sinner and wicked : or, more properly — The sin- 
ner punishes himself. " All the wicked will God destroy," 
saith the inspired Psalmist ; but no, saith our author's theory-, 
their destruction is a moral ruin, and that is their own work : 
thus they sin and punish themselves. But the Bible repre- 



128 



IMMORTALITY ! 



sents God, or Christ, as the punisher. Such appears to us 
to be the true relation our author's theory bears to the sub- 
ject of punishment. God is no longer the punisher ; for He 
does not disorganize their moral nature, but they (fy it them- 
selves. God does not involve them in moral ruin ; they do 
that work themselves. Their punishment hereafter is nothing 
new — it is " moral ruin," and they were morally ruined in 
this life ! If his views do not confound all ideas of punish- 
ment proper, as inflicted of God on sinners, we mistake the 
idea of punishment. God, by inspiring the prayer — u Oh 
let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end" has spoken 
the doom of both the wicked and their wickedness — they and 
it shall " come to an end." Our author's theory saith, the 
wicked nor their wickedness shall ever come to an end, but 
continue eternally ! God hath said — " The enemies of the 
Lord shall be as the fat of lambs ; they shall consume : into 
smoke shall they consume away :" Psa. 37 : 20. Our au- 
thor's theory saith, They are not as the fat of lambs — they 
are spiritual and immortal, they can never " consume away," 
but will eternally remain. 

We have felt disposed to pass our author's consideration of 
certain texts, where " destroy," &c, occur for the reasons 
already stated ; but a few of his remarks on them will have 
a brief notice. To sustain his theory, that to destroy — as 
the final punishment — does not mean " extinction of being" 
— (we would say, death) — he introduces the cases of unclean 
spirits that " cried through the organs of the possessed." In 
one case the demon cried — -V Art thou come to destroy us ?" 
in another, " adjures" Jesus " not to torment him ;" " and in 
Math. 8 : 28" (Luke 8 : 28, we presume is meant) "where," 
saith our author, 

11 The demon follows his entreaties that Jesus would not torment 
him, with a prayer that he would 4 not command, him to depart into the 
abyss? or the place of infernal imprisonment and torment." 

Our author concludes all these expressions — destroy, tor- 
ment, and being sent into the abyss—" indicate the same 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 129 

thing." Now, we do not admit that they all mean "the 
same thing," but widely different things ; yet we shall re- 
mark only on one point. The expression, "not command 
them to depart into the abyss" in our translation is, " into 
the deep the original is " abusson our author says, it is 
" the place of infernal imprisonment and torment." It is 
well he did not say that place is eternal, as well " infernal," 
for Christ himself went into " abusson!" Does our author 
think Christ went into " the place of infernal imprisonment 
and torment?" Perhaps he does, but if so, then it is not im- 
possible to get out, for Christ came out ; and if so, others may : 
hence it cannot be eternal! But did Christ go into " the 
abyss" — the abusson ? He did. Thus speaks Paul, Rom. 
10 : 7, " Say not in thy heart, who shall ascend into heaven ? 
(that is, to bring Christ down from above :) or 3 who shall de- 
scend into the deep" — abusson ? " the abyss" — " (that is, to 
bring Christ up from the dead.)" 

Here are two facts distinctly stated by the apostle, which, 
taken together, completely demolish our author's whole 
theory. Let them be pondered well. In the first place, 
Christ did go into " the abyss" — abusson — therefore " the 
abyss" is not " the place of infernal imprisonment and tor- 
ment. 5 *' Second : Paul states distinctly that to be dead is 
to be in "the abyss" — abusson; for Christ when dead was 
there : " Who shall descend into the abyss ? that is" saith 
Paul, " to bring up Christ from the dead," 

We appeal to all men, who have not "prejudged" the 
case, if we have not demonstrated — by inspired authority — 
that to be in " the abyss" is to be dead — literally dead ; for, 
in no other sense than literal death, did Paul speak of Christ 
as " dead :" hence " the abyss" is not " the place of infernal 
imprisonment and torment ;" but to be literally dead. The 
demons, whatever they were in their nature, dreaded a literal 
death, which is the greatest of all calamities that could be- 
fall an intellectual being when it is final and irrevocable, as 



6* 



130 immortality: 

it is to be in the case of " all the wicked," whom £< God will 

destroy." 

We might take up one by one all our author's quotations, 
which he endeavors to turn to the account of his theory, 
and show that they afford no more support to his views of 
them than those we have just considered. Whatever tor- 
ment, in any given case, may precede death, it does not prove 
that death — literal death — is not the true " wages of sin " 
and the u capital punishment" to incorrigible and impenitent 
transgressors of God's commands. Whatever modification 
the terms death, destruction, &c, may be required to have 
in given cases of obvious necessity, no such modification is 
admissible or allowable in the statement of the penalty of 
law, unless it can first be shown that the subject of the pen- 
alty is manifestly of such a nature and constitution that the 
death or destruction threatened cannot be executed in the 
literal sense. No inferences will avail here. It must be 
plain, unequivocal testimony, that the most common mind 
addressed can understand, and not some theological specula- 
tion growing out of " the traditions of men." Till then, the 
advocates of endless sin and suffering can prove man immor- 
tal, or undying in his nature or constitution, by some plain 
" Thus saith the Lord," they have not made even a begin- 
ning in proof of their theory. To us it is truly astonishing 
how men of mind, of thought, of learning, can beguile them- 
selves into the belief that man is a being who is to live for- 
ever, regardless of his moral character. Holiness % which is 
but another word for harmony with God, is an indispensable 
pre-requisite to " live forever." That " harmony" — where 
the gospel is proclaimed — is decided by the reception we give 
the Son of God. He is the chosen of God to give life to dy- 
ing men. In him God is well pleased. Is God's choice our 
choice ? Is His pleasure in His Son ours also ? Is the 
honor God places upon His Son the honor with which we 
wish to see him honored ? Is God's pleasure that His Son 
should be " the way, the truth, and the life" our pleasure 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 131 



also ? If we are with God — in harmony with Him in these 
things — then do we truly " come to God by" Christ, and are 
made partakers of the Holy Spirit of God, by which the love 
of God is shed abroad in our hearts — the union is consum- 
mated — we are in harmony with God, or are holy, and eternal 
life is the reward, or the inheritance. If out of harmony 
with God, death — deprivation of living existence — is our 
doom. 

Our author, towards the close of his argument, touches 
slightly upon the resurrection, but styles it " the resurrec- 
tion of the body though he seems to admit the resurrec- 
tion, as a truth, yet it manifestly has no importance in his 
mind. And why should it have ? His whole argument has 
been about " the soul,'' while its " material companion" — as 
he has all along styled the body — has evidently been a source 
of difficulty to be avoided, as it mightily embarrasses his ar- 
gument, and would present man as the object of doom, and 
not the fancy being he has been contemplating. ■ But as the 
resurrection could not be altogether avoided, instead of speak- 
ing, as the Scriptures do, of the resurrection of " the dead^ 
— of the "him" — c< I will raise him up at the last day," 
&o. — he has substituted " the body," as if that were the 
"Him" to whom Christ's words of promise relate. Our au- 
thor introduces this part of the subject by saying, "there 
are other passages claimed as proof-texts for annihilation," 
and proceeds as follows : 

u Some of those relating to the resurrection, in which our Saviour 
is supposed to speak of it as a gift of God. which only a part of the 
human race ' shall he thought worthy to attain ;' (Luke 20 ; 35,) or 
those in which Paul speaks of it as an ohject of earnest and anxious 
desire, but whose attainment was contingent, (Phil. 3 : 11,) and other 
passages where the resurrection seems to attach only to a union with 
Christ, (John 6 : 39, 40 ;) or those where the entire hope of the fu- 
ture life is thought to be made dependent on the resurrection of the 
body. 1 Cor. 15 : 11-. 17. Now the only force of argument in these 
passages, to prove what is claimed from them, is founded on the as- 
sumption that they teach a partial resurrection ; and that if there is 



132 



IMMORTALITY I 



no resurrection of the body, there is no future life. Whatever be 
their import otherwise, is not essential to our present argument. — 
Unless they sustain this position they are of no relevancy to the 
question now at issue." 

Our author felt the force of" these texts, which clearly 
teach " the resurrection of the dead" and not of " the body" 
merely, as his theory maintains, if it maintains a literal 
resurrection at all— of which there is some doubt. If he 
had said these texts are claimed by us on the ground that 
they teach & peculiar resurrection for the righteous, to a life 
that is eternal, because they then u put on immortality 5 ' and 
" incorruption," he would have blinded no one. The resur- 
rection spoken of in all the texts he has referred to, is a pe- 
culiar resurrection, in which the wicked have no part. In 
this sense, it is a " partial resurrection" also; z. e., a part 
only of the human family are the subjects of it. Nor can 
our author evade this, except by a denial of the resurrection 
spoken of being a literal one. This he has done in the case 
of Paul, Phil. 3:11. After quoting two or three texts 
which he thinks teach " a universal resurrection," he says — 

" If, then, the mere rising to life is in virtue of union with Christ, 
it is evident that such union is not the exclusive prerogative of be- 
lievers." 

Here, as usual, he talks of " the mere rising to life !" Is 
rising to life that is eternal, because the subjects of it put on 
incorruption and immortality," a " mere rising to life ?" 
Why did our author strive to make that impression ? Was it 
honorable and right to do so ? But as if conscious he had 
misrepresented us, he adds — 

" Or if that cannot be at all admitted, is it not clear that the life 
that is spoken of as the result of such union, is something more than 
mere return, or continuance of conscious being?" 

■ Undoubtedly it embraces " something more ;" but does it 
not embrace that ? Does it not embrace " return" to life and 
eternal " continuance of conscious being ?" That is the 
point our author should have met, but which he has evaded 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 133 



A return to such a life is 11 the exclusive prerogative of be- 
lievers;" and is the result of union with Christ, in which 
the wicked have no part. 

After the last paragraph we have quoted from our author, 
he adds — 

c; So that the denial of it" [that life which is something more, &c] 
" is not at all tantamount to the affirmation of the extinction of 
such being." 

That is — if we understand our author — to deny the 
wicked that something more than mere return to life, which 
the righteous have, is not tantamount to the affirmation that 
they are not immortal ; for it is their immortality that is 
the great question. We say then, to deny the wicked the 
eternity, future, of living existence, which the righteous are 
to have by the promise of Grod ; and to exclude them from 
putting on immortality and incorruption — which is peculiar 
to the resurrection of the righteous, and comes only by a 
living " union with Christ" — is " tantamount to the affirma- 
tion of the extinction of" their " being," whether that " ex- 
tinction" is without a resurrection or after having been reviv- 
ed from death : if revived, they are mortal ; and being mor- 
tal cannot live forever, but must be subject to the laws of 
mortality which always end in death. From such death there 
is no revealed revival, but it is eternally unbroken. 

Our author adds — " It follows also that the resurrection which 
Paul professes to pursue after, is not a restoration to existence, physical 
or corporeal, but a rising from moral death to perfect spiritual life, or 
to perfect holiness and godliness of being." 

Thus, as we expected, our author's theory must lead him 
to a virtual denial of a literal resurrection of the dead. We 
are perfectly aware that he has approached this point very 
cautiously, and with a preamble that seems to admit " a uni- 
versal resurrection," but may possibly be construed to mean 
a resurrection of some sort not actually embracing a re-living 
of the literally dead ones. But be that as it may, here is an 



134 



IMMORTALITY 



unqualified denial that the resurrection Paul professed to 
pursue is " a restoration to existence, physical or corporeal," 
but that it is " a rising from moral death," &c. He has not 
allowed us to claim, that revival from literal death was 
embraced in any way in Paul's statement. Had he said it is 
not a " mere restoration," &c, there might be some reason 
in giving him credit for not intending to exclude that, abso- 
lutely. As it stands, it is an unqualified denial that Paul 
embraced in his expression, at all, a revival from literal 
death. 

Here, then, is an instance in which our author has made 
himself tangible. Let us look the text and the context full 
in the face. Phil. 3 : 8 — " I count all things but loss," saith 
Paul, " for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus 
my Lord:" * # # " that I may know him, and the pow- 
er of his resurrection," [Was that " from moral death.?"] 
" and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conform- 
able unto his death;" [Is that " a moral death ?"] " if by 
any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead :" 
— Greek, u ton Exanastasin ton nekron • literally, " the 
resurrection out from the dead." 

If this language does not teach a literal revival into life 
from the dead, then, in our humble judgment, no language 
can teach it. Look at it. Christ suffered; [" his suffer- 
ing," saith Paul.] Christ died ; [" his death."] Christ rose 
from the dead ; [" his resurrection," saith Paul.] Was all 
thiy literal, or " moral ?" What next ? Paul looked to have 
a " fellowship of his [Christ's] sufferings." That is literal. 
Paul expected to be " made conformable to his [Christ's] 
death." Not " moral death ;" for Christ never died such a 
death. What more ? Christ was raised from the dead ; 
[" his resurrection," saith Paul.] Then what ? With the 
prospect of " sufferings and death" before him, Paul labored 
and struggled with all his trials and losses, and endured, con- 
fiding in his Lord, "If," saith he, "by any means I might attain 
unto the resurrection out from the dead," as his Lord Jesus 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 135 

Christ had done. Christ was raised from the dead while 
others remained dead ; his resurrection was "peculiar : Paul 
wished to be also raised " out from the dead;" and he ex- 
pected to be, while others would remain dead : whether those 
others would remain dead only for a time or for ever " is 
not essential to our present argument the resurrection he 
sought was peculiar ; and, as is evident, was another and 
entirely different one from anything the wicked would have : 
hence w r as a gospel benefit, conferred only on the righteous ; 
and was not a resurrection from a " moral death." The sub- 
jects of this resurrection are raised " spiritual" in their entire 
nature — " immortal, incorruptible." In such a resurrection 
the wicked have no part : they never, no never, possess any 
other nature than that inherited from Adam the first, who 
was " animal" and " earthy," of ct the earth," and returned to 
the earth ; <c such are they also that are earthy :" see 1 
Cor. 15 : 45-49. Mortality, corruption, and death is their 
inheritance. 

In the sense of peculiar, then, this text, and those in Luke 
20 : 35, and John 6 : 39, 40, do " teach only a partial resur- 
rection ," and no wonder our author passed the subject so 
hastily, which fills so large a part of our Lord's preaching 
and that of his apostles. There is no subject of the New 
Testament occupies so prominent a place as that of the lite- 
ral resurrection of the dead ; and in the great multitude of in- 
stances it is spoken of as peculiar to the righteous. Yet our 
author can dispatch the whole question in less than two pages 
of his Essay ! He could not even afford to quote the texts 
which he so quickly disposes of, but only refers to them. 
Was he afraid that the preseotation of them would show the 
glaring "absurdity" of his notion, of a " rising from moral 
death ?" Look at John 6 : 39, 40, to which he refers : it 
reads thus — " And this is the Father's will which hath sent 
me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, . 
but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the 
• will of Him that sent"' me, that every one which seeth the Son, 



136 



IMMORTALITY : 



and believeth on him. may have everlasting life : and I ivill 
raise him up at the last day." 

Is all this " a rising from moral death?" and, is not that 
to take place till " the last day?" Are such texts as these 
to be turned aside from their literal and obvious meaning, so 
as to make them tally with the notion that all men are im- 
mortal ? Has u God spoken to manV And has he spoken 
according to the laws of human language ? and are v His words 
to man " to be interpreted according to the laws of human 
speech VI as our author said at the outset of his Scripture- ar- 
gument. Has he forgotten his own law of interpretation, that 
he can put forth such an interpretation as he has done on Phil. 
3: 11, and insinuates on John 6: 39, 40 ? So it would 
seem, or else no violation of that law can take place. The 
text in Luke our author passes with the following remark — 

{{ In the case presented in Luke 20 : 85, 36 . there is manifestly 
constant reference, not to a simple coming forth from the grave, but 
to a resurrection to the heavenly state ; as shown by the fact that 
1 that resurrection ' and 1 that world 5 — so named in the passage — are 
predicated of those who are to be 1 as the angels of God.' " 

To this we reply — The point at issue between our Lord 
and the Sadducees was one that related to the whole question 
of the revival of the dead. " Then came to him certain of 
the Sadducees which deny that there is any resurrection/' 
verse 27. " Which say there is no resurrection," Mark 12 : 
18, and Math. 22: 23. The resurrection to be treated of, 
then, covered the whole ground of dispute between our Lord 
and the Sadducees on the resurrection ; and it could be none 
other than the fact whether there be a revival into life of 
the dead. The Sadducees did not come to inquire about 
" the heavenly state " of the revived dead ; but with a denial 
of the revival of the dead into life. Our Lord, it seems, ac- 
cording to our author, changed the question from a general 
one to a special and partial one. It would seem as if — ac- 
cording to our author's position — our Lord did not regard 
the case of the wicked dead as of importance enough to de- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



137 



mand even a passing notice. Perhaps it is so. Be that a3 
it may, if he met the Sadducees' question at aft, he proved 
a literal re-living from the dead ; and, of course, that literal 
life was a part of the resurrection ; and this our author is 
compelled to admit, though manifestly with reluctance. He 
says, in this discourse " there is manifestly constant refer- 
ence, not to a simple coming from the grave," &c. Yery 
true, it was not simply that ; but was it not that — with be- 
ing made alive literally — whatever else might have been con- 
nected with it ? Our author cannot escape the force of the 
argument of literal life, as an essential in the resurrection, 
by his little " simple" word ; for our Lord adds — " Neither 
can they die any more" They had been dead — literally so 
— once,- but now they are made alive from the dead, and can- 
not u die any more." 

We ask all men of candor, if such words are " interpreted 
according to the laws of human speech," do they not demon- 
strate that there is a literal death, and is to be a restoration 
from that death to a literal life ? Whether the revival into 
life, our Lord speaks of in this discourse, is " only a partial 
resurrection is not essential to our present argument ;" it is 
sufficient to have shown that it embraces life literal, and 
that it is peculiar to the righteous; which latter fact our 
author himself admits. 

Our author's remarks in the following extract are perfect- 
ly gratuitous, and well nigh carry on the face of them a de- 
liberate intention to misrepresent the views of those he is 
arguing against. He says — 

11 The doctrine of the resurrection is so explicitly taught by the 
gospel, and is so bound up with Christ's doctrine and history, that 
if that is rejected, its rejection must carry the vjhole Christian system 
with it; and the whole race then, the 'fallen asleep in Christ' as 
well as all others, are lost, i. e., gone from our knowledge and our 
hope, without redemption, without atonement; all still in their sins." 

Do we not maintain the doctrine of the resurrection as the 
only hope of a future life to any man ? while our opponents 



138 



IMMORTALITY I 



maintain that the man proper " never dies," but only changes 
his mode of life by dropping his " material companion ?" 
Hence, according to their view, there being no death pro- 
perly speaking of the man, there is no need of a resurrection, 
and there cannot, by a possibility, be any of the " him" — the 
man ; for a resurrection of that which never was dead is an 
" absurdity." To reject the gospel's proclaimed resurrec- 
tion is to reject " the whole Christian system :" in that idea 
we are agreed with our author. Christ is the " resurrection 
and the life" — the Giver both of spiritual life now, and of 
literal life after death to all those who have been " made 
partakers of the divine nature" in their probationary state, 
which life is never to be interrupted — " neither can they die 
any more :" their life is eternal, because they put on im- 
mortality and incorruption at the last trump" This is the 
peculiar gospel benefit; while "he that soweth to his flesh 
shall of the flesh reap corruption," Gal. 6:8; and " shall 
be no more," Psa. 104 : 35 ; shall be " burned up, saith the 
Lord of Hosts," and " neither root or branch" of them shall 
be left, Mai. 4 : 1 ; shall receive " the wages of sin" which 
"'is death."* 

But the resurrection, in our author's view of the universal 
immortality of all men, or rather, of the soul-entities of all 
men, is of no apparent importance ; and the denial of it — 
only so far as Christ is concerned — would not touch " the 
Christian system;" because — according to our author's sys- 
tem, that the great and leading terms relating to man's des- 
tiny, such as eternal life, death, destruction, &c. — all the re- 
wards and punishment of the future are " predicated of the 
soul !" How then does the denial of the resurrection — if he 
means a literal one, or " the resurrection of the body" as he 
calls it — " carry the whole Christian system," so that " the 
whole race are lost ?" We think it is his theory which car- 
ries away " the whole Christian system with it," by denying 
that future and eternal life — or living existence beyond the 
grave — depends on the revival into life of the dead ; of 



REVIEW OF TEE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE, 1S9 



which revival Christ was " the first-fruits" of them who have 
" fallen asleep in " him : so that "if Christ be not raised, 
then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 
Our author seemed afraid to use the inspired word " perish- 
ed;" but substitutes for it. " lost ;" and even that he did not 
feel safe in leaving without a commentary to harmonize it 
with his view; hence, he saith, " i. e.. gone from our know- 
ledge," &c. He concludes his less than two pages on this 
vital topic by saying — 

" These passages, then, relative to the resurrection, by no means 
controvert the position of the universal immortality of our race/'" 

Facts show that " our race" are now mortal, for they do 
die literally. The Scriptures- affirm, in the resurrection 
those in Christ who are "dead, shall be raised incorruptible," 
and " put on immortality;" but the Scriptures no where af- 
firm that any man out of Christ shall thus be raised, or " put 
on immortality :" hence "these passages" do "controvert" 
and totally overthrow " the position of the universal immor- 
tality of our race ;" for, that which is spoken of as peculiar 
to one class of men must necessarily exclude all others not 
included in that class : but to be " raised incorruptible" and 
to " put on immortality" in the resurrection, " at the last 
day," or " at the last trump," is, by inspired authority, de- 
clared to belong to " those in Christ," and is therefore pecu- 
liar to them : hence, all others are excluded from immortal- 
ity. To us, such a conclusion is as undoubted as that two 
and two are equal to four. If this position is not proved, 
then there are no " laws of human speech" that are worth the 
name. 

Our author next attempts to do away the force of the argu- 
ment, against his views of endless sin and suffering, drawn 
from Rev. 20 : 14, 15, where " death and hell" are cast into 
the lake of fire, indicating their destruction, and not their 
preservation in any way. He " approaches these terrible 
passages with a feeling of unspeakable awe and mystery."— 



HO 



IMMORTALITY ! 



We wish he had felt more than he did, then he would not 
have launched into speculation on them. He says— 

"First, granting that death, and Hades here are mere ideal impersona- 
tions, and that their being cast into the lake of fire is meant their 
utter and eternal cessation, we should restrict this prediction, as we do 
the declaration subsequent, 1 there shall be no more death,' to the 
universe of 'the righteous , the saved, or the unfallen." 

Where is his " unspeakable awe" when he thus adds unto 
these things" which " are written in this book ?" Who au- 
thorized him to " restrict this prediction, ' there shall be no 
more death,' to the universe of the righteous?" The scene 
is laid after " death and hell " are destroyed, and the wicked 
have shared the same fate; then John " saw a new heaven 
and a new earth," and he " heard a great voice out of heaven 
saying" * * * " there shall be no more death, neither sorrow 
nor crying, neither shall there be any moue pain : for the 
former things are passed away." Rev. 21 : 1-4. This de- 
scription is clearly parallel, in time, with Rev. 5 : 13, on which 
we have previously remarked ; and the two descriptions 
taken together, or either taken alone, completely demolish 
our author's notions of " eternal pain" and " immortal sor- 
row." 

The following outburst of our author's imagination shows 
how intensely he had applied his " ear to the infinite gloom 
to see whether" he might " not perchance catch the accents 
of immortal sorrow." He says — 

" Death and hell are cast with the devil and lost souls, into the 
lake of fire, not there to be annihilated, but with them forever to dwell, 
on them endlessly to raven ! The image of the lake of fire with the 
wicked cast therein, is in itself horrible past thought; but in that 
lake of fire, death and hell yawning to receive their fall ! Shut out 
from God's pure universe, and prisoned forever with those horrors in 
that Tartarean den — their endless prey ! Sin, death, and hell, lost 
men and devils bound together, forever struggling, interlocked, in 
that abyss ! "Well might the apocalyptic muse cry, shudderingly, — 
'This is the second death — that lake of fire V " 

" Well might" our author have shuddered to have given 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



141 



utterance to such thoughts of God, the Creator of all things. 
Like Saul of Tarsus, while " breathing out threatenings and 
slaughter," we hope our author can plead, that he wrote this 
paragraph " ignorantly in unbelief." That God, the Maker 
of all, has determined on such a doom, for any of the work 
of His hands, will require arguments stronger than anything 
our author has presented. His fancy sketch, if believed 
to be the revelation of the Bible, could not fail to drive a 
thinking man into an utter rejection of the book itself. The 
denial of the existence of any God at all, does not exceed 
in folly that of admitting the existence of such a God as our 
author's fancy sketch implies. 

Our author concludes his " Scripture Argument" with a 
kind of recapitulation and reflections ; which, as it is " may 
be," and his opinion of the position he occupies, we do not 
think proper to travel over ; and it would only lead to a 
repetition of what has already been said ; but one closing re- 
mark we will briefly notice. He says — 

" Yet though we have been led to the awful height of this argu- 
ment, guided as we believe by the word of the Eternal Spirit, still 
terror takes hold of us, and we are ready to shudder and faint, as we 
look from the fearful height down the avenues of endless night and 
sorrow." 

We think our author has attained a " fearful height ;" and 
we do not wonder he is " ready to shudder and faint" at the 
sight which, in his opinion, he beholds. But we differ with 
him in opinion as to how he came to that " fearful height :" 
we do not "believe" he was " led" there " by the word of 
the Eternal Spirit," but by another spirit, which " said unto 
the woman, Ye shall not surely die." The whole of our 
author's argument has been in harmony with that first denial 
of Jehovah's utterance against man in case he sinned. That 
utterance, of the Creator of man, is the basis of all subse- 
quent threatenings, as the final result to sinners. The de- 
nial of its literal fulfillment — "Ye shall not surely die" — is the 
'basis of all attempts to endow man with an endless existence 



142 



IMMORTALITY. 



without regard 'to moral character. That first denial of the 
literal accomplishment of Jehovah's threatening was, virtu- 
ally, telling man he was immortal, or would live forever if 
he did disobey his Maker. If that denial differs, in fact, 
from our author's conclusions, relative to the wicked, we are 
unable to discover the difference. Hence the presumption 
is, that he has " been led to the awful height," where he finds 
himself, by another agency than the " Eternal Spirit." Well 
may he " shudder and faint" while representing the God of 
love and truth — who has sworn by Himself that He hath no 
pleasure in the death of the wicked — as being intent on keep- 
ing the wicked eternally alive in " endless night and sorrow." 
We should think any man ought to " shudder" while making 
such a representation of his Maker. 

It is strange indeed, that not one of the apostles — taught 
by our Lord Jesus himself — ever gave utterance to such de- 
scriptions of the future existence of wicked men as our author 
does Strange that they never employ such terms as " end- 
less misery, eternal pain, immortalwoe, unending torments;" 
or tell us how " devils and lost men bound together," are 
" forever struggling, interlocked," in the lake of fire. Strange 
that they should never speak of u immortal ruin/' Strange 
they should never once tell us, "that, whether for good or 
ill, we are, as a race, embarked on a voyage of endless being /" 
Our author can find words and phrases to express these 
ideas ; but the apostles could find none, it seems ; or rather, 
they had no sl'ch ide.as to express. They talked as plain 
common-sense men, who had a plain message to the poor and 
unlearned. To such they talk of life and death : of a resur- 
rection from death as " the hope" of the gospel : which re- 
surrection, they maintained, is to be achieved, to those in 
Christ, " at the last trump ;" when all such " shall be raised 
incorruptible," and "put on immortality ;" — a useless and im- 
possible matter, according to our author's theory. But it 
was of vast and prominent importance in the minds of the 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



143 



apostles, and ever stood out in the fore-ground of all they 
said and taught. 

The Bible throughout, from Genesis to Revelation, holds 
up to man "Life and Death" The first, the promised re- 
ward of obedience to God : the latter, as the penal infliction 
for disobedience. This our opponents are compelled to ad- 
mit, because it cannot be denied without a palpable denial 
of the record of God ; but to evade the literal force of the 
Bible utterance they invent a soul-entity, which they fancy 
is a sort of spiritual something — they cannot tell what — then 
they assume that this soul is immortal. Having thus com- 
mitted murder on man they lose sight of " rroi " and fly off 
to dispose of the creature of their own production ; to do 
which they must change both. Life and Death to mean some- 
thing that will harmonize with their immortal-soul theory. 
Thus do they corrupt the word of God to conform it to their 
own u traditions." The simple-hearted people who look to 
be fed, by the plain words of the God of truth, are told, 
u - life does not mean life literal ; nor death literal death" 
Very well ! if these words are not to be taken in their plain 
and obvious import, when found in the Bible, then all its 
language may be mystical, and: who shall tell us what the 
Bible does mean ? "It is dangerous for you to have the 
Bible,'' cries the Papist. i: You cannot understand it with- 
out a Priest," cries the modem Protestant. " Why not?" 
asks the hungry heart that desires the truth. " 0, because, 
you will think God means literal death — ceasing from a liv- 
ing existence — when He saith * Thou shalt surely die-? and 
you will suppose He means an eternal living existence, when 
He promises eternal life," answers the theologian ! Thus 
between the Papist and the Protestant Priests the Bible is 
brought to the ground, and becomes an unmeaning and un- 
intelligible book to all men except the would-be teachers; 
and they cannot agree among themselves what it does mean; 
only they seem to be perfectly agreed that it does not mean 
what it says of man's origin, nature, and destiny. 



144 



IMMORTALITY : 



Disguise it as theologians may endeavor to do — it is their 
views of inherent immortality — and that all men have u em- 
barked on a voyage of endless being" — which being, to the 
wicked, is to be one of " immortal sorrow," and " eternal 
pain"— that has led thinking men to embrace universal salva- 
tion, or the universal restoration of all men to holiness and 
happiness. It has led others to invent a " purgatory," where 
some at least can be purged from their sins in another life ; 
and it has prepared the way for, and brought in, the last 
great and lying manifestation called " Spiritualism ;" more 
properly, " Spirit Manifestations;" which is likely to sweep 
away, as with the besom of destruction itself, multitudes of 
ministers and church members who have been taught such 
theology as that contended for by our author. Wearied and 
disgusted, with such theological teaching, and supposing the 
Bible does sustain it, they go in search of more modern 
manifestations — made by these imaginary a immortal spirits," 
that have laid aside their " material companions," — to get re- 
lief from such horrid representations of God and His govern- 
ment as those we have been reviewing. If they had been 
taught the truth, in the simplicity with which the Bible sets 
its forth, viz : " life and death" — life if holy : death if un- 
holy — never would there have been the temptation to reject 
and leave that Book to go after lying divinations, as multi- 
tudes have in these last days. 

Men are asked to sacrifice reason, common sense and all 
their other attributes as men, to receive theological notions, 
thrust upon them by the traditions of theological speculators, 
and told they must " receive them with childlike faith ;" 
while their reason revolts at such horrid representations of 
their Maker. To be told, that " the word of the Eternal 
Spirit" makes known such a doom, as our author describes, as 
the portion of the largest part, or of any part of the human 
family, is so revolting and shocking to all their moral sense 
of justice and fair dealing, that thousands plunge into utter 
indifference to all religion, and regard it as an idle speculation, 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 



145 



fit only for interested Priests, who would make gain of their 
godliness by a fearful grasp on the superstition of those who 
dare not oppose their theological assumptions lest they get 
a portion in " immortal sorrow and eternal pain." 

Suppose the few texts our author relies on would bear 
such a construction as he puts upon them : might not a rea- 
sonable man ask— " Will they not also bear another con- 
struction, more in harmony with the revealed character of God 
as the Creator of all, and whose tender mercies are over all 
His works ?" And might it not further be inquired — " Is 
not another construction demanded, to harmonize other in- 
spired declarations and inspired prayers ? For example the 
following — " The wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the 
Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume : into 
smoke shall they consume away," Psa. 37 : 20. " 0 let the 
wickedness of the wicked come to an end," Psa. 7:9. " Let 
the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the ivicked 
be no more," Psa. 104 : 35. " Behold all that were incensed 
against thee shall be ashamed and confounded : they shall 
be as nothing ; and they that strive with thee shall perish. 
Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them 
that contended with thee : they that war against thee shall 
be as as nothing, and as a thing of naught," Isa. 41 : 11, 
12. " Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord G-od, I 
have no pleasure in the death of the wicked ; but that the 
wicked turn from his way and live : turn ye, turn ye from 
your evil ways; for why will ye die ?" Ezk. 33 : 1 1. u Be- 
hold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven ; and- all the 
proud, yea, all that do wickedly shall be stubble ; and the 
day that cometh shall burn them up, said the Lord of hosts, 
that it shall leave them neither, root nor branch," Mala- 
chi 4:1. "A certain fearful looking for of judgment and 
fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries," Heb. 
10 : 27. " He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," 
Math. 3:12. " He that believeth not the Son shall not see 
life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" John 3 : 36, 

7 



146 



IMMORTALITY I 



" For God so loved the world that He gave His only begot- 
ten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not per- 
ish, but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16. " They shall 
be as though they had not been," Obadiah 16. 

Hundreds of texts of like character are to be found in the 
Bible which come up as so many witnesses against our au- 
thor's construction of a few texts — for he has only a few at 
most — not one of which declares there is " immortal sorrow" 
or " eternal pain" to a child of Adam's race. To establish 
his construction of the few texts — the very few — that he can 
possibly call to his aid, he must arraign more than two hun- 
dred texts — or witnesses — God has placed upon the stand, 
and make every one of them falsify their own words by de- 
manding that their words should not be received according 
to their plain and obvious sense, when spoken of man, but in 
another and entirely different sense to correspond with his 
fancy creation, and imaginary entity, whose existence he has 
not proved ; or if that existence was real, he has not and he 
cannot produce one text in the entire volume of inspiration, 
that saith it is immortal, either in the English version, or in 
the Hebrew or Greek originals. Yet he demands of us to 
receive his construction as if it was the " word of the Eter- 
nal Spirit." He has scouted at " annihilation," as if it were 
no punishment to be annihilated ; and he has ridiculed the 
idea, by calling it " the punishment of the annihilate^;" as 
if the doctrine of annihilation had no countenance in the 
Scriptures of truth ; but if he could find as much for the 
phrase " immortal soul," or the " endless being" of " the 
race," he might have exulted over our views of the Scrip- 
ture testimony — " All the wicked will God destroy," Psa. 
145 : 20 ; " Who shall be punished with everlasting destruc- 
tion" 2 Thes. 1 : 9. That we have Scripture countenance 
for using the term annihilation — which seems so odious to 
our author — we shall now very briefly show. 

Prof. Ptck, in his "Bible Student's Concordance" — a work 
of great value to a mere English scholar — gives us two ori- 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 147 

ginal terms, the literal signification of which is, " to annihi- 
late:" and these terms are applied to the destiny of wicked 
men in such connection as to make it certain that the Spirit 
of God — which inspired " holy men of old" — designed to 
teach the utter extirpation of the wicked, and not a preser- 
vation in any living state. These Hebrew terms are Tsom- 
ath and Shomad. In our translation they are sometimes 
rendered destroy] destroyed, and cut of. According to Prof. 
Pick there are about forty different Hebrew words that are 
translated destroy and destroyed, We will give a few in- 
stances where the terms occur, the literal signification of 
which, he tells us, is " to annihilate." In Psa. 18 : 40 tsom- 
uth occurs. None doubt but that a portion of this Psalm is 
prophetical of Messiah and what he will do. Thus speaks 
the word of Prophecy — " Thou hast also given me the necks 
of mine enemies • that I may tsomath — annihilate them 
that hate me," Saith Jesus, Luke 19 : 27, when the Noble- 
man shall return he will say — " Those mine enemies, which 
would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and 
slay them before me." Thus the prophecy, in Psa. 18, is to 
have a fulfillment when Messiah, who is to be Kino- on Da- 
vid's throne, shall " return from heaven." So Paul declares, 
on that return the disobedient u shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction :P 2 Thess. 1:9. Thus the Prophet, our 
Lord, and Paul, witness together, that the enemies of Christ 
are to be annihilated. 

Again, prophecy thus speaks, Psa. 54 : 5 — " He [God J 
shall reward evil unto mine enemies : tsomath— -.annihilate 
them in thy truth." The truth of God is, the wucked shall 
be annihilated, 

In Psa. 94 : 23, tsomath occurs twice ; and the verse lite- 
rally reads thus — " He shall bring upon them their own ini- 
quity, and shall annihilate them in their own wickedness : 
yea, the Lord our God shall annihilate them." Thus the 
fate of the wicked is clearly stated. 

In Psa, 101 : 8, tsomath occurs twice; and as the language 



148 



IMMORTALITY I 



is clearly prophetical of Messiah, it speaks in language not 
to be mistaken. " I will early annihilate all the wicked of 
the land ; that I may annihilate all the wicked doers from 
the city of the Lord." 

Once more, Psa. 143 : 12, David personating Messiah, 
prays — " Of thy mercy annihilate mine enemies, and annir 
hilate all them that afflict my soul." 

Finally, Psa, 145 : 20, we read — " The Lord preserveth 
all them that love him : but all the wicked will he shomad 
— annihilate." 

These examples are amply sufficient to warrant us in using 
the term annihilation in relation to the destiny of all the ene- 
mies of G-od. Those who choose to deny it, and affirm that 
such a disposal of them is impossible, we leave to settle their 
controversy with Him who cannot lie, and whose word abideth 
forever. We believe that men who reject Christ as the 
Life-Give?' will be eternally excluded from life — "be no 
more" — "be as though they had not been :" Psa. 104: 35, 
Obadiah 16 — " The wicked shall perish, and the enemies of 
the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs ; they shall consume : 
into smoke shall they consume away." Psa. 37 : 20. Thus 
do the wicked perish utterly and forever. 

One testimony from the Acts of the Apostles may proper- 
ly be introduced here. Acts 3 : 23, "It shall come to pass 
that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be 
destroyed from among the people." 

The word here translated destroyed is, exolothreutheesetai. 
Of this word Dr. Bloomfield, in his Critical Notes on the 
New Testament, edited by Prof. Stuart, saith, It " is a 
word found only in the Septuagint and the later writers ; 
signifying to 1 utterly exterminate!''''' Will our author, or some 
of his school, tell us how much short of annihilation it is, to 
be " utterly exterminated 7" Such we believe is undoubt- 
edly the fate of all incorrigibly wicked men. Christ came 
that dying men " might have life." If that proffered life is 
refused, or neglected, men " shall utterly perish in their 



REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 149 

own corruption," 2 Peter 2: 12; be "Utterly Extermi- 
nated." Then shall come to pass the saving that is written 
Rev. 5 : 13, " And every creature which is in heaven, and on 
the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, 
and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and 
honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon 
the throne and unto the Lamb forever and ever." — Amen. 



APPENDIX. 



NO, I. 

The following are. the difficulties in the way of our author's 
theory of endless misery, as he himself states them, in his 
argument from Nature for Immortality. 

Would not every attribute of God. that in behalf of the good 
pleads for immortality, in this case demand the utter extinction 
of a being that can only work eternal sin and pain ? Gocl ; s wis- 
dom — shall that hold in immortal existence a being, who in that 
case can only be an immortal failure — an endless ruin, who has 
departed for ever from the aims of infinite wisdom and love, and 
defeats utterly the design of his creation 1 A being which cau 
only be an eternal jar and discord in the universe ! which clashes 
with all celestial order and system, and must go on clanging and 
clashing with these, through unending ages ! which, instead of 
ministering to the illustration and triumph of virtue, can only be 
a hideous blazon of immortal sin and shame ! and must for ever 
hate, and war upon, God and holiness and happiness ! Shall 
Divine reason for ever continue an existence in which that reason 
for ever misses its aim % in which all the indications of aptitudes 
and faculties bestowed by creative wisdom, are hopelessly per- 
verted or defeated ? whose fitness for everlasting excellency can 
end only in everlasting shame ? whose faculty of infinite know- 
ledge, virtue, beneficence and happiness, turns to a destiny of 
endless madness, sin and sorrow 1 whose capacity, in fine, of 
eternal God-likeness only dooms it an eternal devil ! If apti- 
tudes, faculties and capacities of immortal reach, when tending 
to their true, beneficent and beautiful aim, are an assurance of 
immortality, what must be portended by their hopeless, eternal 
failure and perversion ? 

If, then, it be reasoned that God's wisdom must ever deliver 
from the grave, existences that belong to eternal and universal 
harmony, order and beauty, what must that same wisdom ordain 
for those who, through the universe and through eternit}^ can 
only be a defeature and discord, a failure and ruin, a curse and a 
crime ? 

And Divine goodness, delighting beyond thought in happiness, 
can it perpetuate a being only to endless pain ? If God's love 



APPENDIX. 



guarantee endless life to the heirs and diffusers of bliss, what 
must it do with those who can only be children of eternal sor- 
row, and the foci of an eternal plague ? If souls in health must 
be his eternal delight, what must those be who are everlastingly 
diseased, and to whom infinite existence is infinite despair? Can 
the arm of infinite love lift them up from the abyss of annihila- 
tion, only to hold them in eternal suffering ? Does not such a 
thought strike human minds with horror ? how much more, then, 
the Father of infinite mercies ? 

And Divine justice, too, would it not allow, yea, demand the 
extinction of such lost souls ? Would it admit of an eternity of 
punishment for the offences of a life so feeble and so brief, and 
of a creature so ignorant, so weak and so infantile as man 1 So 
far from sustaining the sentiment of justice in themiiverse, would 
not its monstrous disproportion appear a tyranny, shocking the 
sentiment of justice as well as of mercy through the universe ? 
And would not Divine justice — only another name for love, and 
wise as it is pure — would it not avoid the extremes alike of indul- 
gence and of excessive severity, by annihilation ? 

Nor, it may be urged, does it avail against the charge of injus- 
tice and tyranny in the case, to argue that man is not eternally 
punished for the sins of this short and feeble life, but only placed 
by them in a condition and course which make it sure that he 
will sin on for ever, and so be punished for ever, For it is the 
action of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator and Governor, 
that we are considering. To One who is the eternal fountain of 
all life and being and power, and of all law and motive, what is 
the difference between certainty and necessity ? To such an 
one it was perfectly sure beforehand, anterior to thus placing 
man on trial, that it would result in his eternal fall. Would our 
human justice permit a father thus to treat a child, or "indeed 
any creature ? Or should we regard him as wise and good, even 
if possibly just in doing it ? Does not the very nature God has 
given us declare that justice, if it required of the Divine adminis- 
tration to kindle up a hell, would also require, after a time, its 
extinction? If constrained to utter the awful commission of a 
second death, would it not also, somewhere in infinite ages, re- 
voke its commission ? Can his throne stand only on the endless 
torment of offenders of a race and life like ours ? Will not 
Divine justice rather, having compelled them to expiate their 



152 



APPENDIX. 



crimes, surrender up victims which infinite love and wisdom may 
not reclaim, for that wisdom and love to annihilate ? 

And Divine holiness — can it be otherwise than offended and 
pained by the aspect of souls for ever unhealed and unrepentant, 
and to whom eternity can bring no change but that of endless 
progress in sin as well as woe ? Must not such an object be 
loathsome and grievous in the sight of a pure God 7 Would He 
wish to make it immortal ? As well conceive of a mind with a 
most exquisite sympathy, and a sense of the beautiful most quick 
and delicate, aiming to eternize some spectacle of deformity, tor- 
ture, foulness or shame. Would not God's taste, so to speak, 
compel the removal of such a spectacle as sood as possible 1 
With our obtuse and deadened sensibilities we can but dimly 
conceive how ineffably repulsive and abominable a sinful soul 
must be to God. Why, then, should He wish to conserve such 
a foulness and horror — yea, such an evergrowing foulness and 
horror — through everlasting ages 1 And if God's veracity speak- 
ing through the constitution of our nature and the expectations 
and convictions irresistibly springing from it, is thus pledged to 
grant to the obedient and the righteous the boon of an endless 
life, is not that veracity disengaged and released in relation to 
those forfeiting the boon ? Do not thus Divine wisdom, love, 
justice and truth open for the morally lost soul the gates of the 
eternal grave ? 

Such are the difficulties that start on nature at the question of 
Immortality, in view of that most monstrous and dreadful ano- 
maly, a spiritual intelligence implacably and irrevocably at war 
with God and virtue. 



NO. II. 

Man a Soul.— " That man is a living being, intrinsically and 
properly one and individual, not compound and separable, not, 
according to the common opinion, made up and framed of two 
distinct and different natures, as of body and soul, but the whole 
man is soul, and the soul man ; that is to say. a body or sub- 
stance, individual, animated, sensitive, and rational. 55 — Milton. 
l - Treatise on Christian Doctrine," Vol. I. pages 250, 251. 



APPENDIX. 



153 



No. III. 

" Resurrection of the Body." — It may be mentioned, as a 
fact not unworthy of notice, that the phrase u the resurrection 
of the body," so common in the religious instruction of our day, 
is not in all the Bible. The scriptures speak about the resur- 
rection in this manner : " Thy dead men shall live," — :; the resur- 
rection of the dead," — touching the resurrection of the dead," 
— the hope and resurrection of the dead," &c. Paul npeaks. no 
doubt, of the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body," 
Rom. 8 : 23, but it is questionable if here, and in similar in- 
stances, " body" is not used for self— and, if such be the case, he 
means the redemption of ourselves, or simply our redemption 
from the grave to live immortally with Jesus. Examples can 
easily be found in which the term ;; body" expresses the whole 
of man, whatever view may be taken of him, whether a compound 
of soul and spirit or wholly soul. For instance : °' A body [en- 
tire humanity] hast thou prepared me ;" Heb. 10 : 5. " My sub- 
stance," or, according to the margin, ££ my body [or I] was not 
hid from thee, when I was made in secret ;" Ps. 139 : 5. " That 
thy whole body [person — being] should be cast into hell," [Ge- 
henna,] Matt, 5 : 29. « The light of the body [of the man] is the 
eye ;" 6 : 22. u Thy whole body [thou, or the whole man] shall 
be full of darkness ;" 6 : 23. "Through the offering of the body 
of Jehus," that is, by the offering of Jesus, Heb. 10 : 10. i; The 
tongue defileth the whole body" — the whole man — James 3 : 6. 
" Present your bodies [yourselves] a living sacrifice Rom 12 : 
1, &c. It is, then, clearly a scriptural mode of speech to import 
entire man by the word body, and we suggest that it is highly 
probable that such an expression as " the redemption of the 
body" just signifies our final and complete redemption by the 
glorious resurrection, about which the apostles and the early 
Christians delighted to speak so much. The salvation, redemp- 
tion, and adoption of believers is not completed at once : a part 
is effected now, a part at the resurrection, when the great work 
of Divine love and power will be consummated. 1 Peter 1 : 4-9. 
Even regeneration appears to be represented as progressive, or, 
rather, as having two stages — a new birth now by the influence 
of gospel truth, [James i : 13,] and a new birth by the resur- 
rection to immortality when the Lord comes. Hence we read, 
"Neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto the 
angels \ and are the children of God, being the children of the 
resurrection." Luke 20 : 36.— -And i; Verily I say unto you, 
That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the 
Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also [in the 
regeneration] shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel." Math. 19 : 28, 



INDEX 

TO REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE. 



Reason's discourse, 6. — Justice — moral inequalties, 1, — Benevolence, 8, 22. 
— Mystery of evil here, 9, 12. — Argument not positive, 11. — Life after death 
at all as difficult to reconcile as endless life, 13. — Approach to the gulf of night, 
14. — Wisdom's government, 15. — Uses of the endless existence of the wicked, 
17, 24, 25 — Patriarch of Uz — " Why do the wicked live ?" 17. — Human minds 
must be taught by experience and practical illustration, 18.— Beginners may 
need the example of the wicked's sufferings, 19, 20. — Difficulty same now as 
eternally, 20 — Present moment part of eternity, 20. — Wicked may exist to ex- 
hibit their discomfiture, 21 — to strengthen and educate virtue, 21 — to breed 
horror of sin, 22 — that holiness may wear its proper charm, 23 — to express 
God's eternal estimate of sin, 26 — benevolence may require such existence, 22. 
— Our author falls into infinite gloom, 26, 27 — asks us to prove a change in 
God's moral government, 27, 28. — Wisdom may forbid annihilation, 28 — 
Justice may, 29, 30. — Justice must have atonement beyond the grave, &c, 30. 
— Sinner sins while receiving punishment, hence it must be continued, 31, 37, 
38. — Sinner can't claim annihilation, 32- -Not-being a misnomer, 32 — such a 
doom no atonement, most dreadful however, 33. — Satisfaction to justice implies 
continued being, 33, 34. — Sinner must live again or he escapes justice, 35. — 
Death not a punishment, 35. — Not to be no punishment, 36. — Punishment 
something positive, 37.— Will justice dismiss a soul from being, 37. — Bishop 
Newton on eternal torments, 38. — Man's moral trial fair, 39. — Freedom, though 
fearful, a glorious gift, 40. — Saurin's view of hell, 40. — Why not expunge the 
wicked immediately, if ever, 42. — This moment as well as million years hence 
part of the Divine government. 43. — Our author does not assume the present 
always shall be, but calls on us to prove a change, 43. — Does not aim at positive 
proof, 44. — Without revelation nature hangs in doubt, 45. — God's love just : 
will kindle a consuming fire, 45. — His love does not break in behalf of sufferers 
now, 46. — "Vast ages" for retribution, 47.— An objection to unlimited con- 
tinuance of misery, 48* — The relation of evil to good— are we sure it is 
limited, 49. — The prophecy of our moral nature, 49, 50.— Extract from Bishop 
Whately about heathen, 50, 53.— Our author's conclusiou as to what nature 
attests, 53.— He abandons nature unwittingly to our side, 54. — He couples 
Moses and Solomon with heathen poets, 55.™ Concludes with heathen Po- 
sey, 56. 




155 



INDEX 

TO REVIEW OF THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT, 57. 



Our author calls on us to prove a change in Divine government, 59. — Refers 
to Job, 60.— Spirits of dead disturbed, 61.— Dispatches Old Testament, 61.— 
Everlasting punishment, 62. — His rule of interpretation, 62. — Mosaic account 
of man, 63.— God's icill of man's continued life 64, 65. — Author claims direct 
testimony of the immortality of the wicked, 66 — Phrases when applied to 
" the soul," 66. — Ruling Texts, 67. — Math. 25 : 46 claimed as positive, 68. — 
Author's three rules, 68. — The term everlasting, 68, 69. — Historic fact of the 
Jews' belief, 70. — Everlasting predicated of " the soul," 71. — Spirit most en- 
during of ' things, 71.— Kolasis, 73. — Everlasting fire implies conscious being, 
74. — Time-term means time of infliction of pain, 76. — Our Lord would not 
palter in a double sense, 76. — " Punishment of the annihilated," 77. — " Those 

listening to" Jesus, 78. — Looking at the text by itself. 79. Mark 9 : 43, 48 

considered, 79. — " After death." 80 — Reply, 80-86. — Gehenna. 83— Imagery 
taken from 0. T. prophecy, our author's attempt to escape it, 87, 88. — Un- 
quenchable, 89— Isa. 66 ; 24 " probably symbolical," 90.— The final of Mark 
9:43,-90, 91.— Rev. 14 : 9— 11 considered, 92— 96.— Rev. 19 : 20 consid- 
ered, 96.— Rev. 20 : 10 considered, 97.— Our author's dilemma, 98,— His at- 
tempt to dispose of the terms destruction, &c, 99, 122 — 125 —These terms 
predicated of the soul, 100, 103.— Terms he has to encounter, 101.— " Change 
cn the spirit," 102. — ;; Mere existence," 103. — Life of the soul hereafter, 104. 
—.The term "soul," 104, 105.— Living existence is meant by life, 106.— 
" Eternal life jDresent possession," 107.— " If one died for all," &c, 109.— -Savi- 
our preached to the poor, 109.— Texts proving literal life is intended by that 
phrase, 110— 112'— Our author's treatment of Jesus' discourse on life John 
6th, 112.— Reply, 112— 114.— Immortality cannot suffer, 114, 115.— John 17: 
1, 3, What is eternal life, 115.— Our author's consideration of 1 John 5 : 12, 
&c, 117. — God's "Record," 118. — Life not "mere existence," 119. — Spiritu- 
al ruin expressed by the term death. 121. — A previous conception that the soul 
is immortal, 124.— Author's view of 2 Thess. 1 ; 9, 126. — By his theory the 
wicked punish themselves, 127.— The case of demons, 128, 129.— Harmony 
with God alone insures living forever, 130.— The Resurrection, 131—139.— 
Rev. 20: 14, 15 considered, 139— 141.— Our author's " awful height," how 
he was led there, 141.— Such teaching opposed to that of Christ and his apos- 
tles, 142.— Consequences of it, 144. — Scriptures require another construction, 
145. 146.— The Bible teaches annihilation, 147, 148.— -The wicked to be " ut- 
terly annihilated," 148. 




154 



PERIODICALS AND BOOKS, 



The Bible Examines is a semi-monthly, of sixteen super-royal 

octavo pages, devoted mainly to the topic of <: No Immortality, nor 
Endless Life, except through Jesus Christ alone ;" or that man is not 
constitutionally immortal; hence, apart from Christ will cease to be. 
There is no endless sin and suffering. Terms $2 per year, always in 
advance. Geo. Storrs, Editor and. Proprietor. 

Bible vs. Tradttion : in which the True Teaching of the Bible is 
manifested: the Corruptions of Theologians Detected, and the Tradi- 
tions of men Exposed : showing the true meaning of the terms Soul, 
Spirit, Hell, Everlasting. Eternity, Life, Death, &c. An invaluable 
help to understanding the Scriptures. Price, bound, 75 cents ; in 
paper cover 50 cents. 

Six Sermons on the inquiry, Is there Immortality in Sin and Su f- 
fering ? To which is added a sermon on Christ the Life- Giver, or 
the Faith of the Gospel, by the Editor of the Bible Examiner : pre- 
faced with a Biographical sketch of the Author. Price in plain 
binding 63 cents: in gilt 61. 

Future Punishment, by Rev. H. H. Dohncy, Baptist Minister, 
England. " Part Second" in a pamphlet of 200 pages. This work is 
very valuable : showing that literal death is the punishment of the 
wicked. Price 88 cents. 

The Discussion between Prof. Mattison, of the Methodist E. 
Church, and the Editor of the Bible Examiner. Question: — " Does 
the Bible teach that the creature Man — which the Lord God formed 
of the dust of the ground — has a superadded entity called the soul I' 1 
Price 25 cents in paper covers , 50 cents bound. 

Man : s Destiny. — Immortality : The Arguments from Nature and 
Scripture, by Rev. T. M. Post/D.D., St. Louis, Mo., Reviewed by the 
Editor of the Bible Examiner. Price, inpamphle: 88 cents : bound, 
50 cents. 

Analytical Investigation Concerning the Credibility of the 
Scriptures, and of the Religious Systems inculcated in them ; toge- 
ther with an Historical Exhibition of Human Conduct during the 
several dispensations under which mankind have been placed by 
their Creator. — By J. H. M'Culloh, M. D. Baltimore, Md.; in 
2 Vol., 8vo., 500 pages each. Price 82.50. 

Our Israelitish Origin, or Lectures on Ancient Israel, by Prof. 
J. Wilson, England. A very interesting work. Price 75 cents. 

Any of the foregoing Books or Pamphlets will be sent of post- 
age on the receipt of the price. They can be had, by those who call, 
at 109 Nassau St., New York. A satisfactory discount will be made 
to wholesale purchasers. 

Address Geo, Storrs, Box 1058, New York. 



tin 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 014 652 711 5 * 



